SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 9, 2022

2020006446 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2022)

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. 13/716,315 12/17/2012 Seonhwa KIM 5004-1-444 9901 33942 7590 02/09/2022 Cha & Reiter, LLC 17 Arcadian Avenue Suite 208 Paramus, NJ 07652 EXAMINER WILSON, DOUGLAS M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SEONHWA KIM, JIYOUNG KANG, KYUNGHWA KIM and DONGJUN SHIN ___________ Appeal 2020-006446 Application 13/716,315 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-7, 10-15, 19- 21 and 24-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 3. Claims 1, 10 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 30, 2019), the Reply Brief (filed August 7, 2020), the Final Action (mailed May 23, 2019) and the Answer (mailed June 10, 2020), for the respective details. 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.42(a). (“The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3. Appeal 2020-006446 Application 13/716,315 2 and 37 are independent. Claims 8, 9, 16-18, 22 and 23 are cancelled. Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Introduction According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a “method and an apparatus for providing a multi touch interaction, and more particularly, to a method and an apparatus for providing a multi touch interaction in a portable terminal for controlling the portable terminal more conveniently and intuitively.” Specification 1. Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method of providing a multi-touch interaction in a portable terminal having a touch screen, the method comprising: activating an editing mode in response to detecting by the touch screen a first touch gesture at a first position of the touch screen to select an icon displayed on a first page of a home screen, the home screen including at least the first page and a second page; detecting a second touch gesture at a second position of the touch screen apart from the first position to perform a transition from display of the first page of the home screen to the second page of the home screen, wherein during the transition to display the second page of the home screen, the touch screen continues to display the selected icon at the first position of the touch screen as contact with the selected icon from the first touch gesture is maintained on the touch screen; 3 Appellant does not argue independent claims 1, 10 or 37 individually. See Appeal Brief 9, 13. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Appeal 2020-006446 Application 13/716,315 3 changing an indication of a page position information of the home screen in response to the transition to the second page of the home screen while in the editing mode with the first touch gesture maintained on the touch screen; and changing a location of the selected icon to be displayed on the second page of the home screen in response to the touch screen detecting a release of contact with the selected icon, and wherein during the second touch gesture, a location of at least one icon relative to borders of the first page of the home screen is changed, such that the icon makes contact with one of the borders of the first page, and when the first touch gesture is moved from the first position to a third position different from the first position after the second page is displayed according to the second touch gesture, moving the selected icon from the first position of the second page to the third position of the second page. References Name4 Reference Date Bae US 2012/0084692 A1 April 5, 2012 Yang US 2012/0260213 A1 October 11, 2012 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-7, 10-15, 19-21 and 24-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Bae. Final Action 3-25. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Yang discloses: moving the selected icon [fig. 4 @S13 is construed as allowing any desired movement of the selected icon although fig. 3B @10 does not illustrate additional movement] from the first position of the second page to the third position of the second page [fig. 4 @S13 -S18 teach after icon movement across pages by second touch the 4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-006446 Application 13/716,315 4 selected icon is moved by the first touch to any position on the page away from the first touch position and the third position becomes the icon position when the first touch is released]. Final Action 5. Appellant argues that Yang’s: first touch operation occurs at S 12 (“Confirm an icon on a current page displayed on the touch screen to be moved according to the first touch operation”) before and outside the loop of S 13-S 17, or before the alleged second page is displayed according to the second touch gesture. While Yang teaches at S 17 has “the first touch operation still been received?” loops to S 13, the loop does not include S 12. The purpose of step S 17 is to allow additional page swipes during steps S 14-S 16. Appeal Brief 13 (referring to Yang’s Figure 4). Appellant concludes: Therefore, Yang, and the combination of Yang and Bae do not teach “when the first touch gesture is moved from the first position to a third position different from the first position after the second page is displayed according to the second touch gesture, moving the selected icon from the first position of the second page to the third position of the second page” as recited in claim 1, or the limitations identified in claims 10 and 37. Appeal Brief 13. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Appellant’s exemplary embodiment of this limitation in the Specification discloses “as shown in an example screen view identified by reference number 440 and an example screen view identified by reference number 450 [in Figure 4B], the user may move the specific icon 20 to a location the user desires in the first page and release the touch.” See Specification 13 (emphasis added); Appeal Brief 5 (“Figure 4B, icon 20, note movement of unreferenced thumb in Screen View 440”). Thus, the movement from a first position of the second Appeal 2020-006446 Application 13/716,315 5 page to a third position of the second page amounts only to a drag operation which positions the icon in the desired location. The Examiner concedes that Yang does not explicitly show movement of “music player” icon in Figures 3A and 3B from a first position to a third position as recited in the independent claims. See Final Action 5. The Examiner nevertheless finds that it would have been obvious to move the music player icon to that third position in light of the teaching of Yang’s Figure 4. As articulated by the Supreme Court, “[a]s our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, Yang’s Figure 4 shows that it was known to move an icon via a drag operation. Yang Figure 4, S13; ¶ 27. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to continue the operation depicted in Yang’s Figures 3A and 3B by dragging the selected icon to a new position on the new page as shown in Figure 4. Yang further discloses in the Abstract that, “[t]he method confirms an icon on a current page displayed on the touchscreen to be moved according to the first touch operation, and controls the confirmed icon to move towards coordinate values of the first touch operation.” Yang further discloses regarding related technology that, “[m]any electronic devices (e.g. smart phones with a touchscreen) support a home screen with multiple pages or with application launchers, to allow a user to freely choose or arrange the applications he/she desires in the electronic device.” Yang ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Consequently, Yang discloses that it is well known in the Appeal 2020-006446 Application 13/716,315 6 technology to manipulate icons within a multiple touch electronic device in the same manner as the claimed invention. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 10 and 37, as well as, dependent claims 2-7, 11-15, 19-21, 24-36 and 38-48 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 9 and 13-14. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 10-15, 19-21, 24-48 103(a) Yang, Bae 1-7, 10-15, 19-21, 24-48 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED