SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021001168 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 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. 15/440,554 02/23/2017 János Váradi 1933.4030000 3917 82515 7590 03/01/2022 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 EXAMINER DYER, ANDREW R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): e-office@sternekessler.com jasong@sternekessler.com mlee@sternekessler.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JÁNOS VÁRADI Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, 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, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20-23, which are all of the pending claims.2 Appeal Br. 1; Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2012). Appellant identifies SAP SE as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 2, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 20-23 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “a drag and drop minimization system.” Spec. ¶ 8. By way of background, Appellant’s Specification describes known “drag and drop functionality” in using a graphical user interface, wherein “the user selects a portion of data using a mouse, and drags the selected portion to a different location of the interface where the data is moved and dropped.” Id. ¶ 1. Appellant’s Specification also notes problems with typical drag and drop operations: [W]hile being dragged, the selected portion may obstruct any data that may exist underneath the dragged portion. This makes it difficult if not impossible to see where the user is actually dropping the selected portion. Also, dragging the selected portion of data across extended distances over the geography of the interface can be cumbersome for a user. Thus, it may be difficult for the user to maintain the drag while navigating (such as scrolling) the user interface. Id. Appellant’s Specification purports to address these problems by providing a system in which a selected object, as well as non-selected objects, are reduced in size during a drag and drop operation, resulting in “less data obstruction” as well as reducing the distance between locations for the drag and drop operation. Id. ¶ 18. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer implemented method, comprising: detecting a drag event associated with a selected object located in a first location of a user interface, wherein a display of the selected object prior to the drag event consumes a first content area; reducing a size of the user interface and a size of the selected object based on a viewing area during the drag event, Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 3 wherein a display of the selected object during the drag event consumes a second content area that is less than the first content area within the user interface, and wherein a distance between the selected object and one or more non-selected objects on the user interface is reduced within the user interface; reducing a size of a first one of the non-selected objects by a first proportion; reducing a size of a second one of the non-selected objects by a second proportion different from the first proportion; detecting a drop event corresponding to the drag event, wherein the drop event indicates a second location of the user interface to which the selected object is to be moved; and restoring, responsive to the detecting the drop event, the sizes of the selected object, the user interface, the first one of the non-selected objects and the second one of the non-selected objects. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name3 Reference Date Lee US 2012/0079432 A1 Mar. 29, 2012 Han US 2013/0083012 A1 April 4, 2013 Yun US 9,747,019 B2 Aug. 29, 2017 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee. Final Act. 5-9. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lee and Han. Final Act. 9-10. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lee and Yun. Final Act. 10-11. 3 All references are identified by the first-named inventor only. Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 4 Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20-23 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lee and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Final Act. 11-18. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We concur with Appellant’s contention the Examiner erred at least in finding that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “reducing a size of a second one of the non-selected objects by a second proportion different from the first proportion” and “restoring, responsive to the detecting the drop event, the size[] of . . . the second one of the non-selected objects,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 11 and 20.4 Appeal Br. 20-23 (Claims App.); see id. at 8-14; Reply Br. 2-5. A. Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 20-23 over Lee The Examiner finds Lee teaches or suggests all of the limitations of independent claim 1. Final Act. 5-7. With regard to the disputed limitations “reducing a size of a first one of the non-selected objects by a first proportion; [and] reducing a size of a second one of the non-selected objects by a second proportion different from the first proportion,” the Examiner finds Lee “at least arguably teaches and/or suggests” these limitations by disclosing that non-selected icons are reduced in size by one proportion and non-selected screen pages are reduced in size by a second proportion. Id. at 4 Appellant’s contentions present additional issues. Because the identified issue is dispositive of Appellant’s arguments on appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 5 6-7 (citing Lee Fig. 6, ¶ 75). With regard to the non-selected screen page being reduced in size, the Examiner finds in particular that the thumbnails shown in Figure 6 (e.g., the thumbnails in region 600, such as thumbnail 673) are representations of screen pages that have been reduced in size. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because the Examiner errs in equating the creation of thumbnails used to represent pages in Lee with the claimed re-sizing of non-selected objects on a screen. Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellant argues: Lee describes creating new objects (thumbnails), that represent pages of the homepage. The created thumbnails are then displayed on the home screen of a device. The thumbnail creation and display process of Lee, which includes selecting a size of the thumbnails, does not teach or suggest the claim language of reducing the size of a non-selected object of the interface as the Examiner alleges (OA, p. 6, where the Examiner alleges the thumbnails teach or suggest a second non- selected object which is reduced in size). . . . Lee further describes that the created thumbnails, and not the actual pages, are then displayed in the current home screen. “For example, the control unit 300 may create thumbnails corresponding to the respective page and display the thumbnails in the current home screen, as indicated by reference symbol 407.” (Lee, 0058, emphasis added). Id. at 11-12. Appellant then contends that “[n]owhere does Lee teach or suggest that the pages themselves are resized.” Id. at 12. The Examiner responds by asserting that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that the “thumbnails” in Lee are “miniature[] version[s] of a page.” Ans. 6 (citing Microsoft Computer Dictionary, May 1, 2002, Microsoft Press, Fifth edition, Page 519). The Examiner further asserts: Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the thumbnail to be a version of the page itself and the act of Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 6 “creating” the thumbnail is the act of reducing the page in size into the thumbnail. In other words, the thumbnail and the original are not separate documents, as argued by Appellant, as the thumbnail is a version of the original. As a result, Appellant’s allegation that the thumbnail “does not yet exist on the Interface” is incorrect as a matter of fact. Id. Appellant responds by pointing out that Lee treats a resized page and a thumbnail as distinct objects, with different reference numerals in the drawings and distinct terminology. Reply Br. 2. Appellant acknowledges that thumbnails “correspond to pages,” but contends that they are nevertheless distinct entities that are created as a certain size and are not themselves ever resized. Id. at 3. We are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection, for essentially the reasons argued by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 8-14; Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, we agree that the Examiner fails to show that Lee’s description of thumbnail representations of pages teaches or suggests pages being non- selected objects that are both reduced in size in response to a drag operation and then restored in size in response to a drop event, as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 11 and 20. As Appellant contends, Lee does not disclose that thumbnails are themselves resized pages; rather, Lee consistently describes that thumbnails are created to represent a page. Lee ¶ 58 (describing creation of thumbnails corresponding to respective pages); ¶ 75 (describing thumbnails corresponding to pages). Notably, Lee describes and depicts resized pages themselves, and, in so doing, shows them as distinct entities from the thumbnails. For example, in Figure 6 (also relied upon by the Examiner), Lee shows both resized pages as well as thumbnails corresponding to pages: Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 7 Figure 6 of Lee, a portion of which is reproduced above, illustrates “touch-based user interaction to move a content item between pages in the home screen.” Lee ¶ 23; Final Act. 7. As depicted above, Lee shows, in the screen indicated by reference symbol <601>, a screen prior to a drag and drop event. Lee ¶ 74. When a drag event is detected, the page is “resized into a page 650,” as shown in the screen indicated by reference symbol <603>. Id. ¶ 75. Lee also describes that “the previous and next pages are also resized respectively as pages 640 and 660, and the resized pages 640 and 660 are displayed in part together with the resized page 650.” Id. Portions of these resized pages are visible in Figure 6 above in the screen indicated by reference symbol <603>. Thus, the resizing of pages as described in Lee refers to actual pages shown in Figure 6, not to the thumbnails. Lee describes the thumbnails separately as representing resized pages. For example, thumbnail 673 in Figure 6 represents page 670. Id. ¶ 79. This is shown below in another excerpt from Figure 6: Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 8 Figure 6 of Lee, a portion of which is reproduced above, illustrates “touch-based user interaction to move a content item between pages in the home screen.” Lee ¶ 23. As shown above, thumbnail 673 represents resized page 670, but each exists separately from the other. Thus, as Appellant correctly contends, the thumbnails are not themselves pages that were reduced in size nor are they ever restored in size in response to detecting a drop event, as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14. Rather, they are distinct entities created for the purpose of allowing a user to move a content item. Id. Once the content Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 9 item has been moved, the thumbnails have no additional utility and are removed. Id. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 20 over Lee, and we, therefore, do not sustain that rejection. The dependent claims stand with their respective independent claims.5 B. Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20-23 over Lee and AAPA The Examiner alternatively rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Lee and what the Examiner terms as “Applicant Admitted Prior Art.” Final Act. 11-18. In particular, the Examiner states: 37 C.F.R. § l.83(a) states “[t]he drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” (Emphasis added). However, this rule makes an exception for “conventional features” that are “not essential for a proper understanding of the invention.” Of the features missing from the drawings identified above, Applicant only alleges that the limitation “modify a visibility of one or more portions of one or more non-selected objects of the user interface during the drag event, wherein the modified one or more non-selected objects consume less content area during the drag event than before the detection of the drag event” is found in the figures. (Remarks 9). Thus, Applicant has constructively admitted that each of the remaining features of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20-23 not present in the drawings is a “conventional feature[].” Thus, each of these limitations are being considered as Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 4. 5 Although the Examiner cites additional art in combination with Lee for dependent claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 (Final Act. 9-11), the Examiner’s findings as to the additional cited art do not make up for the deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings regarding Lee. Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 10 Then, in the alternative rejection, the Examiner finds “[e]ven if Lee did not disclose the claimed limitations . . . AAPA discloses these limitations.” Id. at 13. The Examiner also separately objects to Appellant’s drawings. See id. at 1, 3-4. Those objections are not subject to appeal and are not before us. Appellant argues the Examiner’s determination of AAPA is in error. Appeal Br. 14-17. Appellant also separately filed a Petition challenging the Examiner’s objections to the drawings as well as the Examiner’s finding of “Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art” based on alleged deficiencies in the drawings. See Patent Owner’s Petition under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.181(a)(1) and 1.182 Requesting Reconsideration of Examiner’s Actions, filed Sept. 29, 2020 (“Petition”). On December 10, 2020, Appellant’s Petition was granted in part. Part of that determination provided: [T]he Examiner has provided no citation to a rule or law that would allow for interpreting a non-responsive argument as a form of estoppel, nonetheless an admission of conventionality. Even a broad reading of MPEP 2129 does not reveal a situation that would render the examiner’s interpretation reasonable. Based on the current record, no features in the objected to claims should be held as admittedly conventional or Applicant admitted prior art. Decision on Petition, issued Dec. 10, 2020. We see no basis to depart from the reasoning provided in the Decision on Petition, and we accordingly agree that the Examiner has failed to support the determination of AAPA. We are, therefore, persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20-23 based on the combination of Lee with alleged AAPA, and we reverse that rejection. Appeal 2021-001168 Application 15/440,554 11 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, and 20-23 are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 20-23 103 Lee 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 20-23 6, 16 103 Lee, Han 6, 16 7, 17 103 Lee, Yun 7, 17 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20- 23 103 Lee, AAPA 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20-23 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20-23 REVERSED