Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc.

Filing 57

Disregard; see 61 . Modified on 12/20/2010 (jas).

UNWED STATES. -. PARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patet and Trademark Olfie
AdMdress: WMMIR,99NER OF 0MTENTS AND TRADEM4ARKS

I SERALNUMER FILUNG DATE

Washington, D.C. 20231 IATTORNEY OKE O

FIRST NAMED INVENTOR

08/228,46.0

04/15/94

BEERNINK

El El

EXAMINER BANERJEE, A ART UNIT PAPER

I
-NUMBER

26 M2/0707 PAUL L. HICKMAN HICKMAN & SEVER P. 0i. BOX 61059 Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc. ALTO, 94306 PALO This isa communication from the examiner Incharge of your application. COMVMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRlADEMARKS

26039 DATE MAILED:

Doc. 57 Att. 10 07/0 7/94

01This application has been examined

0

Responsive to communication filied on_______

0

This action Ismade final.

A shortened statutory period for response to this action Isset to expire 'T4igemont(s), Zi days from the date of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will cause the application to become abandoned. 35 U.S.C. 133 Partil THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION: 1. ~'Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892. M. L Notice of Art Cited by Applicant, PTO-1449.
!1.

2.t Notice of Draftsman's Patent Drawing Review, PTO-948. 4.L Notice of informal Patent Application, PTO-I152.
6. E
__________________

0

Information on How to Effect Drawing Changes, PTO-1474-.

Part 11 SUMMARY OP ACTION

1.

Cims

"? 5 /,)~ '4.

?are

pending Inthe application.
are withdrawn from consideration.

Of the above, claims ____________________________

2.J ~Ciams
3. 1:i Claims

have been cancelled.
are allowed.

4.WClalms
s.

1-3 t)/-14 /13 ?2

are rejected.

are objected to. Ei1 claims E 6.0 claims_____________________________ are subject to restriction or election requirement. 7. [1This application has been filed with Informal drawings under 37 C.F.R. 1.85 which are acceptabie for examination purposes. s. ElFormal drawings are required Inresponse to this Office action.

9.5 The corrected or substitute drawings have been received on
10.

__________.Under

37 C.F.R 1.84 these drawings has (have) been [3 approved by the

are [3 acceptable; CI not acceptable (see explanation or Notice of Draftsman's Patent Drawing Review, PTO-948).

ElThe proposed

additional or substitute sheet(s) of drawings, filed on ________. has been

examiner: C3 disapproved by the examiner (see explanation).
_ _____

El The proposed drawing correctilon, filed 12. 5Acknowledgement is made of the claIm for priority under 35
11.

E3 approved; 03 disapproved (see explanation).

f3 been filed In parent application, serial

no. __________;

U.S.C. 119. The certified copy has E3 been received 03 not been received tiled on
__________

13.,E Since this application apppears to be Incondition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits Isclosed In accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 19350C.D.11; 453 O.G. 213. 14, Other

EXAMINERS ACTION PTOL-M2 (Rev. 2983)

Dockets.Justia.com

Serial Number: 07/985,588 Art Unit: 2609

1.

This application is a continuation of application SN#

07/985,588.

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. S 103 which forms 2. the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under subsection (f) or (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

3.

Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 103

as being up atentable over Liljenwall in view of Mizzi. Addressing claim 1, Liljenwall teaches a gesture sensitive button that consists of: digital processor (fig 8, logic gates),

a screen means coupled to said digital processor, pointer means for pointing to locations on said screen means (namely, a finger; col 1, lines 49-58), a button (the array of button segments A, B, C... which form a single button as if the segments were part of a

low resolution touch screen--see arguments section) that is

Serial Number: 07/985,588 Art Unit: 2609

-3-

responsive to at least two different button gestures.

Liljenwall

contains gesture recognition means (logic for decoding buttons, q.v. Liljenwall fig 3 or 4) which is operative to initiate a process within the device upon the detection of said at least two different button gestures. gesture. The process is determined by the

See Liljenwall fig 8, "Enter" and "Clear Last Digit"

functions where the direction of the stroke determines whether or not to "Enter" or "Clear Last Digit". Also referring to

Liljenwall figure 8, the gestures are generally recognizable (numbers, letters, etc). Regarding the newly added limitations of the digital processor being responsive without any intermediate input, the device of Liljenwall is intended to allow a user to
".

.. .enter

information into information processing machines simplyu by the act of making these finger strokes across the face." lines 62-63). (col 1,

Liljenwall further specifies that "...[t]he user

brings a finger into contact with the fact 10, traces a path over the face while maintaining contact, then removes the finger from contact." (col 3, lines 38-41).
There are no intervening

gestures or the like necessary to enter the data.
Although Liljenwall does show transparent button means superimposed on a display, he does not explicitly teach that the buttons are images. Mizzi teaches the use of soft buttons, or a

specific, labeled (Mizzi cal.5, lines 34-36) area of the screen

Serial Number: 07/985,588 Art Unit: 2609

-4-

whose position and outline (i.e. nature) are entirely programmed by the user (col 1, lines 61-68) and thus constitute the button image as intended by the applicant. Conventionally, buttons may

be of many shapes and sizes; certain buttons (icons) are designed to indicate to the user what the function of the button is. It would have been obvious to modify Liljenwall by substitution of a soft button (image) such as that taught by Mizzi because using soft buttons in order to maximize the display surface (Mizzi col 1, lines 36-41), or in other words, to use a size-limited display most effeciently. Addressing claims 2, 3, 9, 11, and 16, the prior art shows the image of a button (the "key", Mizzi col 5, line 31), a touch sensitive screen where the pointer may be a stylus (Mizzi col 1, lines 43-51 sic passim, col 2, lines 6-8). Referring to claim

12, the purpose of a soft button is to partition an area of a screen for a particular function or purpose. It would be obvious

to detect the gesture within the button (as opposed to somewhere else on the screen) because that is the purpose of partitioning an area of the screen to form a button.
Liljenwall
(col 4,

Referring to claim 16,

lines 34-42) teaches looking up in memory

(using a LOT) to recognize gestures) and thus determine which recognizible gesture (if any
--

note in fig 8 that not all

possible gestures are allowable in all modes of operation) has been made.

Serial Number: 07/985,588
Art Unit: 2609

-5-

Addressing claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 15, the choice of a tap, "X"I or a 110/" seen as an obvious choice of design. is the discussion of the "1XI" and "It"l Please note

in the arguments section.

Further note that one of the allowable gestures of Liljenwall is a "tap", or single press (fig 8,
"1+"

sign).

Referring to claim 8, the button of Liljenwall is present before the gesture is detected. "determining..."1) is lifted. The interpretation (or

of the gesture occurs after the stylus (finger)

The "nature of the button" could mean how it is Mizzi

labeled (such as "OK"' or "CANCEL") which is widely in use. teaches that the position and outline (i.e. nature) may be entirely programmed by the user (Mizzi col 1, lines 61-68).

It

would be obvious that the user would program the outline of the button (or place it in a meaningful position) in order to make the system more user-friendly. Examples of buttons that reveal

their nature are arrow buttons on scroll bars (in some Windowsbased word processors and the like) and icons. Addressing the newly added limitations to claim 8, from the suggestions of Hizzi that there may be buttons of various shapes and sizes (and functions) on the screen. In a regular "point and

click" or "point and tap" button, to determine whether or not a button is selected, a determination is made to see whether the selection is done within the bounds of the button. modified would be no exception. Liljenwall as

From the suggestions of

Serial Number: 07/985,588 Art Unit: 2609

-6-

Liljenwall as modified, the button would not only be able to detect a "click" or a "tap", but a gesture as well. Addressing claims 7 and 10, it was noted in the initial rejection that altering an image of a soft button (to make it appear "pressed", to highlight it, to darken it, et cetera) are techniques commonly used (and therefore obvious). to tell the user the button has been pressed. Referring to claim 17, Liljenwall shows at least one gesture (such as the change mode gesture of fig 4) where a process is initiated (changing mode) when the gesture is recognized (or substantially immediately afterwards). As to claim 18, Mizzi They are used

teaches that the process (operation) may be a plurality of operations as mentioned above (Mizzi col 5, lines 34-36).

4.

Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 103 as being

unpatentable over Barrett (5,260,697) in view of Liljenwall and Hi zz i. With respect to claim 19, please note the preceeding discussions regarding displaying at least one button, the X and check mark gestures and executing a command based on the gesture. Claim 19 further defines the invention by specifically reciting that the button ahs a button bounding box, the gesture has a gesture bounding box, and a "hit" is determined if the gesture box substantially overlaps the button box. Regarding the

Serial Number: 07/985,588 Art Unit: 2609

-7-

button box, conventionally, the boundaries of the button (or an area around the button constitue a button box--to determine whether or not a click or a gesture is within the button). Barrett teaches that within gesture recognition techniques used in buttons displayed on a screen, a "direct hit" is not the only means of detecting whether or not a gesture falls within a button. In particular, Barret suggests using the average value

of a stroke as an indicator (Col 22, stroke parsing algorithm~ B). Given the suggestion of detecting for a substantial overlap (only the average value must overlap), it would have been obvious to use another obvious functionally equivalent, such as the use of overlapping areas (i.e. the spatial correlation) in order to determine whether or not the gesture "hit" the box because both methods would suffice and without using some sort of "near hit" algorithm, it is more difficult for the user to make the gestures. In reference to claim 20, given the suggestions of Barrett that there may be a "near miss", the particular definition of a "near miss" (i.e. 40% overlap, 45%, etc) is seen as a choice of
design provided that it was a reasonable "near miss".

Referring to claims 21-23, please note the discussions of claims 13-15 regarding the X, check, and tap marks, and further the discussion of claim 7 regarding the altered image. particular manner in which the button is altered, or the The

Serial Number: 07/985,588 Art Unit: 2609

-8-

particular function of the button is seen as a choice of design because there a multitude of possible functions, dependent upon the nature of the button. Referring specifically to claim 22, the introduction of a menu on receipt of a particular gesture to a button is well known. one example is within MicroSoft Windows (official notice

taken), where in order to close a window, one "double clicks" the "go away" button in the upper left corner (one gesture), but if the user "single clicks" (another gesture), a menu (equivalent to a choice pallette) "pops" up. Given the suggestions of the prior

art of gesture sensitive buttons, and that each button may activate a different function (Liljenwall), it would have been obvious to use the gestures for various functions and special effects in order to make the device more user friendly. similar argument holds for theX mark of claim 23. A

5.

The applicant's arguments have been fully considered, but

they are not deemed to be persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the segments of Liljenwall are not the equivalent of a button, but rather the equivalent of a touch screen. The examiner respectfully submits

that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have placed so much limitation on Liljenwall. The embodiment of Liljenwall is

on the surface of a wristwatch, where the total area of the

Serial Number: 07/985,588 Art Unit: 2609

-9-

screen is very small.

In a larger embodiment, such as a pen-

based computer system suggested by Mizzi, would one of ordinary skill have required the user to make his gesture occupy the entire screen? The ordinary artisian would have utilized a

portion of the screen (i.e. a button) for the gesture recognition as suggested by Liljenwall. Regarding the functions of the gestures being context sensitive, in a multi-button environment, each button (or icon) is usually associated with a different function (or application). If each button was to have more than one function associated with it, clearly, a different gesture would be associated with each function. From the suggestions of Mizzi that there may be a

number of buttons on the screen at a given time, each button (or icon) may have a number of different functions. consider the

example of a gesture sensitive button on the same screen as a conventional "point-and-tap" button. One of ordinary skill in

the art, to avoid confusion, would not make the conventional button sensitive to the gestures. The applicant has argued (but not claimed) that the buttons have more functionality than those of the prior art, that they indicate the inputs they accept and the function(s) they perform, and that the combination of Liljenwall and Mizzi would merely produce a number of unlabeled, undifferentiated soft buttons. addition, the applicant points out that Liljenwall teaches a In

Serial Number: 07/985,588 Art Unit: 2609

-10-

modal system. was non-modal.

It was not claimed that the applicant's invention

Admittedly, Liljenwall does teach a modal system, however, within each mode, a number of gestures (numbers, etc) may be recognized. For example, (fig 4, q.v. col 4, lines 5-20) show a

gesture that (substantially immediately) executes a proces (or changes the mode) to remap the definitions of the buttons. one example given by Liljenwall that clearly shows his button means (which could be a button image in view of Mizzi) is gesture sensitive follows. Note figure 8 of Liljenwall and in

particular, note the strokes for the "Enter" and "Clear Last Digit" functions in the calculator mode. Note that these strokes They have two

use the same segments, but in reverse order.

different meanings to the device of Liljenwall. Claims 2-6 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, and are still rendered obvious. The 11X"1 and 11/1" symbols were

deemed an obvious choice of design by the examiner in the first office action. The examiner sustains his position on this matter

because there are a pseudo-infinite number of "gestures" that could be used to operate a gesture sensitive button, limited only by the resolution, stylus (or finger) contact width, and dexterity of the user. For instance, if "1X"I and "I"1 (which

incidentally are commonly used as gestures to indicate to a schoolboy whether or not he has answered a problem or question

Serial Number: 07/985,588 Art Unit: 2609

-1

correctly or not) could distinguish an invention as patentable, why not "0"l and

"li;"

Both are easy to draw.

The IIXI and

I"

are

thus deemed obvious choices of design. The remainder of the applicant's arguments draw basis from topics discussed previously, or are addressed in the appropriate rejections section above.

6.

Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed

to Aaron Banerjee at telephone # [phone].

ALVIN E,OBERLEY 3UPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER ARTLUNIT 269

TO SEPARATE

4ID TOP AND BOTTOM EDGES, SNAP-APART AND - 'CARD CARBON

FORM PTa-892 (REV. 2-92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

SERIAL NO.

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

A

I'J

le
NOTICE OF REFERENCES CITED

V6IPL ,T(

I

ROUP ART UNIT

ATTACHMENT

l~PAPER

TO

NUMBER

1

APPLICANT(S)

_____________

_______U.S.

PATENT DOCUMENTS
NAME

_______

_____

*DOCUMENT

NO.

DATE

CLASS

CLASS

SUB.

FILING DATE IF
APPROPRIATE

Al

.5

q1' 8sz 2L12
72
5 S
I~

3

AA.aI

4

1Aa 73 31S- I/f-C

E F G H

K FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT NO.
I________

DATE

COUNTRY
________

NAME

CLASS
___

CLSe

ST
OWG

iPERINN SPEbC-

Ll IMl

OTHER REFERENCES (Including Author, Title, Date, Pertinent Pages, Etc.)

EXAMINER

lAN

-

DATE

/;

A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this office action. (See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 707.05 (a).)

PTO FORM 941S

(REV. 7-92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office

__1

IAPPLICATION

NUMBER

Qq 5-

NOTICE OF DRAFTSPERSON'S PATENT DRAWING REVIEW
THE PTO DRAFTSMEN REVIEW ALL ORIGINALLY FILED DRAWINGS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE DESIGNATED AS INFORMAL OR FORMAL. ADDITIONALLY, THE PATENT EXAMINER WILL ALSO REVIEW THE DRAWINGS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS.

The drainns filed

tZI302,

A.) 2 are approved by the draftsperson.

B. r-1 are objected to by the draftsperson under 37 CFR 1.84 for the reason(s) checked below. The examiner will require submission of new, corrected drawings at the appropriate time. Corrected drawings must be submitted according to the instructions listed on the back of this Notice. 1. Paper and ink. 37 CFR 1.84(a)
L_1
ShetVi)_________ _ oor~.

5. Hatching and Shading. 37 CFR 1.84(d)

LIShade
Fig(s) Fig(s)

Lines are Required.

2. Size of Sheet and Margins. 37 CFR 1.84(b) Acceptable Paper Sizes and Margins
___________

flCriss-Cross Hatching Not Allowed. flDouble Line Hatching Not Allowed.
Fig(s) F1 Padts in Section Must be Hatched. Fig(s) 6. Reference Characters. 37 CFR 1.84(f)

aper

ize ________

Margin To' p Left Right

8Blpby 14 inches ce 2 inh s 1/4 inch 1/4 inch Botm-1/4 inch

8BV2Pby 13 inches c inh 1/4 inch 1/4 inch 1/4 inch

DIN size A4 297 21 by cm. . 2.5 cm 25cm. 1.5 cm. 10ciM.

QProper Size Paper Required.
E] Proper Margins Required.
Sheet(s)

ElReference Characters Poor or Incorrectly Sized.
Fig(s) SReference Characters Placed Incorrectly. Fig(s) 7. Views. 37 CFR 1.84(i) &(j)

All Sheets Must be Same Size. Sheet(s)

ol TOP oI LEFT
Fig(s)

CRIGHT

CBOTTOM

3. Character of Lines. 37 CFR 1.84(c)

flFigures Must be Numbered Properly. flFigures Must Not be Connected.
Fig(s) 8. ElIdentification of Drawings. 37 CFR 1.84(1) Extraneous Mailer or Copy Machine
Marks Not Allowed. Fig(s)
-____

ElLines Pale or Rough and Blurred. ElSolid Black Shading Not Allowed.
Fig(s) 4,

E

Photographs Not Approved.

9. UChanges Not Completed from Prior PTO-948 dated

[]

Comments;

Telephone inquires concerning this review should be directed to the Chief Draftsperson at telephone number [phone].

Reviewing Drattsperson

.911)

Ok

J{L0(

Note: Any objection to the drawings made by the examiner will be communicated separately in an office action.

PTO Coapy

-

-_

//0/"

/15~
/ PATENT

.............................. ~

States Patent and Trademark Office
In re application Of: Examiner: Banerjee, A. BEERNINK et al. Serial No: 08/228,460 Filed: April 15, 1994 Attorney Docket: P 1017C/P053A Tidle: GESTURE SENSITIVE BUTTONS FOR GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING the United I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited States Postal Service as First Class Mail in an envelope 3tdresso:' Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Washingoy, Dc:) 2 0 2gn October 21, 1994;Cl

~$Vfi '4L~c

-a-C, ec~

9-

Group Art Unit: 2609

Signed:/--jAK' Q2reeae=n Lara M. Nelson

c,

VV

Amendment B
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 Dear Sir:

ro

In response to the Office Action of 7/794, please amend the above identified patent application as follows. Applicant hereby requests a one month extension of time to file this response. YA 1111/03/94~ ()f?22?i4A
In the Claimns7

I115~

iiO0.uc cK7

Please cancel claims 21-23.

(twice amended) A gesture

(twie aendd) Agesurebutton interface comprising: for a graphical user

a digital processor; display screen coupled to said digital processor; a pointer for pointing to locations on said display sc n;

button image displayed on said display screen said digital processor being responsive without any intermediate input to at least two different b tton gestures made by said pointer on said display screen at any location over said button image; d gesture recognition means for detecting g stures made on said display screen by said pointer and operative to initiate a process in s id digital processor that is determined by a recognizable button gesture made with said poi er on said display screen which both selects said button image and which has meaning to said di 'tal processor based upon a context associated with said button image wherein the estur rc: /2ition means is arranged such that the function
associated with each of said button gesture will be itiated ad executed in an identical manner regrls of the locatono rthe butto idag thg thg gouewa made

u\t(amended) A gestur e sensitive button as recited in claim 3 wherein A_first one of said button
gestures is a tap made by said stylus on said screen over any segment of said button image.

b,l< (amended) A gesture sensitive button as recited in claim,S wherein another of said button
gestures is selected from' [ he] a group consisting of _a check-mark[s] and an X-mark[s and] that is made by said stylus on said display screen means over said button image.

Q- [displays an] is altered [image] upon the d image
~(twice amended) A method for providing d

17. (amended) A gesture sensitive button as recited in

mn 5wherein the appearance of said button
4

ction of a button gesture.

* zi w' e

a gesture sensitive button for a graphical

a,"ser interface w erein the

ure s nsi 'v b on

lur it ofdai
stu eni euto

trs ai

em ith each di tinct estu e ha i as oc'at

sociated a distinct

process associated therewith, the method comprisin the steps of:
providing a button image on a computer 'splay screen;

UJSSN 08/228,460

2

APLIP053A/SDBaUIF

detecting an inputted gesture made upon said computer dis ay screen by a pointer; determining whether said inputted gesture is ass iated with said button image by Sdetermining whether said gesture contacts said button imag and determining whether said gesture is oe of the dsinc gestures that is a ssoiated with the esture sensitive button [a recognizable gesture in a context of said button image]; and Vill when the inputd gsture is determined to b associated wit the butto image, initiating [one of at least two] the process[es if said gesture' associated with said inputted gesture and the button image[, where said initiated prcs s termined based on both said context associated with said button image and said gesture].

~J

/X (amended) A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in clai p.Kivherein a tap gesture is a [recognizable] first one of the distinct gestures associated with [for] said button image.

11 ~A ~< (aended) A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in clm)'w-hri ~§'check-mark gesture is a [recognizable] second one of the distinct gestures associated with [for] said button image.

A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in cliJ1wherein an X-mark gesture is a [recognizable] third one of the distinct gestures associated with [for] said button image.

4 5<amended)

~.4.(amended) A method for initiating and executing o e of a plurality of command sequences (&from inputs made with a stylus on a gesture sensitive b ton image displayed on a touch-sensitive

/display

screen of a pen-based computer system, the me od comprising the steps of:

displaying a[t least one] button object havin a button context on [a] the display screen of [a] the pen-based computer system, said button obj t having a button bounding box; entering with a stylus a gesture object ,h in a gtuirheeoersi

bul jeic [on a display screen, said gesture bject comprising one of tap, a check-mark, and an
X-mark and having a gesture bounding box];

USSN 08/228,460

3

APLIP053A/SDB/RJF

determining whether said gesture boundi g box substantially overlaps said button bounding box [and whether said gesture has a ge ure meaning within a context associated with said button object on said display screen]; and n-based computer system that is [selected by said] associated with the entered gesture [enn ,] without utilizing an intermediate input to the penbased computer system[.] wh n the etrbounding box is determined to sbstantially overLaI the button boundin2 box: wherein whe a first gestue te is entered. the executed command seQuence turnsa function assoiated with said button o ect on freviousiy off and of if previously on: and wherein when a second aest re tve is entered, the executed command seQuence brings u a choice palette wherein a furtherkelection within the choice palette can be made and a function ~associated therewith executed. executing a command sequence in said

p

A method as recited in cam weinsaid substantial overlap is an overlap of at Leka approximately 40% [or more] of the gesture bounding box and the button bounding box.
.(amended)

2

L

Please add the following new claims.

R4

2 -(NEW) A method as recited in cam wherein when alkethird gesture type is entered, the executed command sequence activates tileast one of the functions associated with said button object. S(NEW) A method as recited in claim>/wherein the gestures types include a tap, a check-

.j

mark, and an X-mark.

USSN 08/228,460

APLIP053A/SDB/RJF

REMARKS Amendments have been made to claims 1, 5-8, 13-15, 19, 20. Claims 21-23 were canceled. New claims 24 and 25 were added. Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li1jenwall et al. in view of Mizzi. Briefly, Liljenwall et al. discloses an information entry system of a wristwatch that allows a user to enter information by using "finger strokes' across the face of the watch device. Mizzi discloses a hand held computer enabling information entry by writing directly on a touch sensitive flat screen. The Examiner argues that the data entry system of Li1jenwall (wristwatch face) constitutes a gesture sensitive button. The button of Liljenwall is subdivided into what the Examiner calls button segments and it is this array of button segments that form a single button. Examiner contends that it is obvious to superimposed this button on a display screen since Mizzi teaches the use of soft buttons or a specific labeled area on the screen. But Li1jenwall, as the Examiner admits, does not teach that the buttons are images that can be located on a display screen (last paragraph of page 3 in 7/7/94 office action). Also, the Mizzi button images have single functions associated with them that respond to a single gesture and does not teach or suggest the use of buttons that recognize different gestures that perform different functions. The Li1jenwall button does respond to a plurality of gestures but the placement of the gesture is crucial in order to determine what the gesture is. For example, in Fig. 8 of Li1jenwall, a six button segment display is shown where the location of a "tap" made on the display determines its meaning. In calculator mode for instance, a "tap" in the upper left segment is interpreted as a plus operation and a "tap" in the lower left segment is a multiply operation. Thus the same gesture made in different button segments does not
initiate the execution of the same function. The button images in the Applicant's invention recognizes different gestures but also that each gesture initiates and executes the same function from anywhere within the button image that it

USSN 08/228,460

5

APLIP053A/SDBRJ

was made (after determination that the gesture is associated with the button). Thus gesture location within the button is irrelevant to the associated function of the gesture. Claims 1, 8 have been amended to mare particularly point out this feature of the Applicant's invention. Specifically, amended claim 1 states that gestures can be made at any location over the button image and that the same function is executed regardless of the location over the button image that the gesture was made. Claim 8 was amended to specifically state that the gesture sensitive button has a plurality of distinct gestures associated with it and when an inputted gesture is detected and determined to be associated with the button image, the process associated with the gesture is initiated. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that the button image taught in the Applicant's invention and the btAton of LiIjenwall are patentably distinct thus it would not be obvious to modify Li1jenwall by substitution of a soft button (image) as the Examiner argues. The dependent claims depend on independent claims 1, 8, and 19 and thus and are respectfully submitted as allowable for at least those reasons stated with respect to independent claims. In view of the foregoing, the Applicant submits that the pending claims are patentable over the cited art and respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn. Applicant believes that all pending claims are allowable and respectfully requests a Notice of Allowance for this application from the Examiner. Should the Examiner believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of this application, the undersigned can be reached at the telephone number set out below. The Commissioner is authorized to charge any fees that may be due to our Deposit Account No. 08-2120 (Order No. APLlPO53A). A duplicate copy of this sheet is enclosed for this purpose.

Respectfully submitted, HMCKMAN & BEYER

Steve D Beyer Reg. No. 31,234

P.O. Box 61059 Palo Alto, CA 94306
415-328-6500

USSN 08/228,460

USSN 8/22,460APLlPO53A/SDB/RJF

PATENT IN THE UNlTED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFCE In m~application of: BEERNINK et a]. Serial No.: 08/228,460 Filed: April 15,1994 e R

)

Attorney Docket No.: Examiner: A. Banerjee

P101 7C/P053A

24
I I494

)

Group Art Unit: 2609 Date: October 21, 1994

) )

For: GESTURE SENSITOS FOR ,GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES)

CERTIFICATE OF MAIL ING I hereby certify that this corrspondlence is being deposited with the United States Postal Servie as First Class Mail to: Commnissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Washington, DC 20231

on Oxkbae 21-1224.

Signea rXYZi

Ynrr
Lara M. Nelson

Comissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, DC 20231 Sir: Transmitted herewith is an amendment in the above-identified application. The fee has been calculated as shown below. Claims Remaining Highest After Previously Present SMALL ENTITY Amnn4ment Milnus Paid For Etr RATE FEE TOTAL

OR

OTHER THAN A SMALL ENTITY RATEFEE

CLAIMS
INDEP CLANMS

.20
3li-

-

21
3

0...
0X38

X1 1= $
=$ $120 __

OR
OR

X22= $
X76 =$ $240

[IMultiple Dependent Claim Present and Fee Not Previously PaidTOA$ X

SE

X

Applicant(s) hereby petition for a I..... month(s) extension of time to respond to the aformentioned. Office Action. Applicant(s) believe that no (additional) Extension of Time is required; however, if it is determined that such an extension is required, Applicant(s) hereby petition that such an extension be granted and authorize the Commuissioner to charge the required fees for an Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136 to Deposit Account No. 08-2120. Enclosed is our Check No. 1...2611 in theamnount of $ 110 to cover the additional claim fee and/or extension of time fees. If the required fees are missing or any additional fees are required to facilitate filing the enclosed response, please charge such fees or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account No. 08-2120 (Order No. APLIP053A ). A copy of this sheet is enclosed. Respectfully submitted, HICKMAN & BEYER

Reg. No.: 31,234 P.O. Box 61059 Palo Alto, CA 94306 [phone]