Flipboard, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 20212019003619 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/855,114 09/15/2015 Raphael Mauro Schaad 27751-29627/US 6909 166422 7590 03/02/2021 FLIPBOARD/FENWICK SILICON VALLEY CENTER 801 CALIFORNIA STREET MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041 EXAMINER KUMAR, ANIL N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PTOC@Fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAPHAEL MAURO SCHAAD Appeal 2019-003619 Application 14/855,114 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Flipoboard, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-003619 Application 14/855,114 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to scrolling digital content with auto-aligning. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for presenting a digital magazine on a client device, the method comprising: receiving a slide operation with a velocity from a user of the client device to slide a content panel being displayed on the client device, the content panel including a plurality of content items and two spatially neighboring content items of the plurality of content items sharing an edge, the plurality of the content items being displaced according to a page layout; comparing the velocity of the slide operation with a velocity threshold; and responsive to the velocity of the slide operation exceeding the velocity threshold, aligning a target edge between two content items with a snap position by automatically applying friction to the slide operation, the snap position representing a predetermined position of the content panel after the slide operation. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Rogers US 2012/0272181 A1 Oct. 25, 2012 Osman US 2014/0304645 A1 Oct. 9, 2014 REJECTION Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rogers and Osman. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2019-003619 Application 14/855,114 3 OPINION2 Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “responsive to the velocity of the slide operation exceeding the velocity threshold, aligning a target edge between two content items with a snap position by automatically applying friction to the slide operation, the snap position representing a predetermined position of the content panel after the slide operation.” The Examiner finds this element is taught or suggested by the combination of Rogers and Osman. Final Act. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds Rogers teaches the limitation except for the “responsive to the velocity of the slide operation exceeding the velocity threshold” portion. Id.; see Rogers ¶ 29 (describing a “flick” gesture causing a momentum scroll that results in content snapping into place if the scroll causes the content to scroll to an end). The Examiner finds Osman teaches or suggests what is missing from Rogers. Final Act. 3; see Osman Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 59–60. At that location, Osman discloses the following: “[r]esponsive to detecting the gestural input, step 506 ascertains whether a velocity threshold is met,” “[i]f the gesture’s velocity does not meet the velocity threshold, step 508 does not fully expose the secondary actions,” and “[i]f, on the other hand, the gesture’s velocity meets or exceeds the velocity threshold, step 510 presents one or more secondary actions associated with the primary notification.” Appellant next argues error because “Rogers’s determination of whether completion of a scroll causes a list boundary to cross an edge of a display does not [perform the claimed action] in response ‘to the velocity of 2 Because Appellant argues all claims based on claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 6– 7), we review claim 1, and, except for our ultimate decision, do not address the remaining claims further. Appeal 2019-003619 Application 14/855,114 4 the slide operation exceeding the velocity threshold,’ as claimed.” Appeal Br. 3. The Examiner relies on Osman, however, not Rogers, for teaching the threshold comparison aspect of claim 1. Final Act. 5. Thus, Appellant is arguing Rogers fails to teach an element upon which the Examiner relies on Osman to teach. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (explaining that when the rejection is based on a combination of references, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to ordinarily skilled artisans in light of the combined teachings of the references. Appellant makes a similar argument based on Osman alone, which is unpersuasive for the same reason. Appeal Br. 5 In particular, Appellant argues “Osman does not align ‘a target edge between two content items with a snap position by automatically applying friction to the slide operation’ in response ‘to the velocity of the slide operation exceeding the velocity threshold,’ as claimed”. Id. The Examiner relies on Rogers to teach this limitation. Final Act. 4. Appellant additionally argues against the combination, contending neither reference teaches or suggests “applying friction to a slide operation to align the target edge with the snap position.” Appeal Br. 6. We find this unpersuasive and rather agree with the Examiner that “Rogers clearly teaches aligning a target or edge to the end of the panel (the list wraps and the scroll promptly stops so that the beginning or end of the list -target edge- Appeal 2019-003619 Application 14/855,114 5 aligns with the top or bottom of the display, respectively, P35).” Ans. 15. The Examiner’s finding is based on the Examiner’s undisputed construction of “applying friction” to mean “change [or] modify the speed/momentum of an element,” which Rogers does by modifying how a momentum scroll is animated. Id. at 13 (citing Rogers ¶ 34–35). Appellant presents several arguments against the Examiner’s proposed reasons for combining the references. See Reply Br. 3–5. In the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, we decline to consider an argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. This is because, as the Examiner has not been provided a chance to respond, and in the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, these arguments are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”). Appellants have provided no such showing of good cause. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2019-003619 Application 14/855,114 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103 Rogers, Osman 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation