Unify GmbH & Co. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

2019004308 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

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.
15/123,113 09/01/2016 Thomas Lederer 2014P00012WOUS-972 4648
88087 7590 07/02/2020
Fritzsche Patent
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN)
P. O. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
BRAHMACHARI, MANDRITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS LEDERER
Appeal 2019-004308
Application 15/123,113
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–12 and 14–21 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant,1 and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
See Final Act. 1–2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral
Hearing was held on June 11, 2020.
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Unify GmbH &
Co. See Appeal Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Sept. 1, 2016
(claiming benefit of PCT/EP2014/000583 (filed Mar. 06, 2014)); Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Feb. 7, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed
Appeal 2019-004308
Application 15/123,113

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention “relate[s] to methods and devices for . . . display and
control” (Spec. 1) and more specifically, methods (and equipment) for
controlling a display device that displays an information element (e.g., a
document) by generating control signals responsive to the detection of
control motions that cause the display device to jump over a portion of the
information element without displaying or scrolling through of the
intermediate portion of the information element. See Spec. 3; Abstract.
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling a display device that
displays an information element, the information element
having a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge of
the information element, the information element configured to
be displayed as extending in a second direction from the first
edge of the information element to the second edge of the
information element, the display device having a first edge and
a second edge opposite the first edge of the display device, the
display device extending in the second direction from the first
edge of the display device to the second edge of the display
device, a first direction being a direction that is opposite the
second direction, the method comprising:
generating a first control signal for sending to a control
device of the display device in response to detection of a control
motion moving in the first direction toward the first edge of the
display device for effecting a translation of an information
element displayed on the display device for displaying an
undisplayed intermediate section of the information element that
is between a currently displayed portion of the information
element and the second edge of the information element;

May 9, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”), mailed Nov. 2, 2018; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Mar. 28, 2019.
Appeal 2019-004308
Application 15/123,113

3
generating a second control signal in response to
detection of (i) the control motion reaching a pre-defined
position adjacent to the first edge of the display device after the
first control signal was generated during continuous motion of
the control motion in the first direction and (ii) the control
motion being at a pre-selected speed and supplying the
generated second control signal to the control device when the
control motion is detected as having reached the pre-defined
position at the speed that is at least the pre-selected speed; and
the control device, after receiving the first control signal
and the second control signal, causing the display device to
jump a display of the information element so that the display
device displays the second edge of the information element on
the display device without displaying scrolling through of the
intermediate portion of the information element between the
currently displayed portion of the information element and the
second edge of the information element.
Appeal Br. 34–35 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Mori et al. (“Mori”) US 2013/0222274 A1 Aug. 29, 2013
Kuehnle et al.
(“Kuehnle”)
US 2013/0346915 A1 Dec. 26, 2013
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6–12, and 14–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuehnle. See Final Act. 3–7.

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the present
application has an effective filing date (Mar. 06, 2014) after the AIA’s
effective date, this decision refers 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103.
Appeal 2019-004308
Application 15/123,113

4
2. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kuehnle and Mori. See Final Act. 7–8.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1–4, 6–12, and 14–21
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claim 10, and dependent claims 2–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 14–21) as being
anticipated by Kuehnle. See Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–8; see also Final Act. 4–
7; Ans. 8–10. Appellant contends that Kuehnle does not disclose the
disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11–21; Reply Br. 1–4.
Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that
[t]he Examiner ignores the requirement that the control
motion move the displayed image toward a second edge of the
information element and further ignores that the triggered jump
causes the displayed image to jump to the second edge of the
information element [from] the currently displayed portion of the
element. The wraparound feature is not resulting in any such
jump. It is wrapping around to show an opposite first edge by
over panning beyond a second edge.
Reply Br. 3; see Appeal Br. 11–21; Reply Br. 1–3. Appellant also contends
that Kuehnle does not disclose “generating a second control signal in
response to detection of the control motion reaching a pre-defined position
adjacent to the first edge” and “the control motion being at a pre-selected
speed.” Appeal Br. 12. Instead, Kuehnle describes sending “a jump of a
display . . . that can result in a wrap-around display feature,” which is caused
by “over panning beyond an edge of a graphic.” Appeal Br. 12. The wrap-
around display feature “occurs automatically in response to a single control
motion” when a user provides “input to over pan past an end of an
information element after a ‘hard stop’ indictor has been provided to the
Appeal 2019-004308
Application 15/123,113

5
user.” Appeal Br. 12–13. Kuehnle’s wrap-around display feature “is not
triggered by a swipe or other control motion being detected as being near an
edge of a display device.” Rather, the wrap-around display feature “is
triggered by the displayed information element being at an end while the
control motion is being provided.” Appeal Br. 13. According to Appellant,
Kuehnle does not disclose “detection of any motion moving in a particular
direction and also a detection of that motion reaching a position near an end
of a display device to trigger any type of jump of a display,” there “is no
second control signal . . . generated as a result of a continuous motion in a
first direction reaching a pre-selected position adjacent an edge of a display
device at a pre-selected speed threshold” “that causes a display device to
jump a display so that a second edge of an information element is
displayed.” Appeal Br. 13–14. See Appeal Br. 11–21; Reply Br. 1–4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Kuehnle
(see ¶¶ 21, 23–25; Figs. 1, 3) do not explicitly or inherently describe the
display functionality required by Appellant’s claim 1. Specifically, Kuehnle
does not describe a control motion moving in a direction of a first edge (e.g.,
swiping up toward the beginning of a document) or generating a control
signal (second control signal) when the control motion reaches a pre-defined
position (adjacent to the first edge) and meets a threshold speed, which
causes the display to “jump” (skip) to a second edge (e.g., the bottom of a
document). Rather, as pointed out by Appellant (see Appeal Br. 13–18)
Kuehnle describes displaying a viewing area 100 of content 104 on surface
102 and panning the surface in a (second) direction toward edge 2 (108)
while viewing content through the viewing area. When edge 2 of the surface
reaches the viewing area the panning stops. The user can then override the
Appeal 2019-004308
Application 15/123,113

6
stop by “over-panning” the surface, which results in a display of the content
at edge 1 (the automatic wrap around feature). See Kuehnle ¶¶ 18, 21; Fig.
1. Kuehnle requires that an edge in the direction opposite of the panning of
the surface (e.g., edge 2 after panning in the second direction) be reached
(the stop occurs) before the opposite edge (e.g., edge 1) is displayed by the
wrap around feature. This is, in effect, the opposite of what Appellant’s
claim requires—that the edge in the direction of scrolling is detected (see
Appeal Br. 3). See Kuehnle ¶¶ 18, 21; Fig. 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Kuehnle anticipates Appellant’s claim 1.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations of commensurate scope. Claims
2–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 14–21 depend from and stand with their respective
base claims. Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions persuade us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1
and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6–12, and 14–21.
Obviousness Rejection of 5
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kuehnle and Mori. See Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner
does not suggest Mori cures the deficiencies of Kuehnle (supra). Therefore,
we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 5 for
the same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–4,
6–12, and 14–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Appellant has also shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We,
Appeal 2019-004308
Application 15/123,113

7
therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–12 and 14–
21.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–12,
14–21
102(a)(1) Kuehnle 1–4, 6–12,
14–21
5 103 Kuehnle, Mori 5
Overall
Outcome
1–12, 14–21

REVERSED