Flipboard, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2019003619 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

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