Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc.

Filing 57

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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office
4~O*

Address:

COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS

Washington. D.C. 20231
-

FUN SERALNU~AN D iIFiiST

NAMED INVENTOR

ATNEDOKrNO

1

07/985.588

12/03/92

BEERNINK

E

APL1PO53

IL_BANEflt--1-26M2/1115 PAUL L. HICKMAN HICKMAN & ASSC. P.O. BOX 61059 Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc. PALO ALTO, CA. 94306
EART UNI

T

PAP ER NUMBER

2609
DATE MAILED;

-Doc. 57 Att. 8
11/15/93

Tia is a wmmrtnkcaton frorn the examiner in charge of ywjr appkcawtn. COMNIISSIJONER OF PATE NT S AND TRADE MARKS

0

This applicationi has been examined

9LResponsive to communication filed on 2

Ji

This action Is made final.

days from the date of this letter. month(s),a_16 A shortened satutory period for response to this action Is set to expire.T~... 35 U.S.C. 133 Failure to respond within the period for response will cause the application to become abandoned.

Part I 1. & &.

THEf FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(G) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:

1]Notice of Refernces
i

Cited by Examiner, PTO-892. Notice of Aft Cite by Applicant, PTO-1449. nformatlon on How to Effect Drawing Changes, PTO-1474.

2. 4. 6.

0 Notice re Patent Drawing, PTO0948. 0 Noltc Informal Patent Application, Form PTO-152. cof

~

~

I

gO

~

4

?C

Palt
1t

SIMMMY OACTION
aims L/A
Oif the above, claims
__________________________

are pending Inthe application.
are withdrawn from consideration.

2.

Claims
Claimis

have been cancelled. are allowed.

&.

.
5.
&

CWks

are rejected.
are objected to.
are subject to restriction or election requirement.

0

Cients

[Joan __________ms___________________

.

UThis application has been filed with Informal

drawings under 37 C.A.R. 1.85 which are acceptable for examination purposes.

I.L2 Formal drawings we. required In response to this Office action.
9.

2]The corrected o' substitute drawings have been received on are C acceptable. C1 not acceptable (see explanation or Notice re Patent
_ ________

.Under

37 C.F.R. 1.84 these drawings

Drawing, PTO-948).
-_______

IG.

1]The proposed additional or substitute sheet(s) of drawings, tiled on
exaner. 0 disapproved by the examiner (see explanation). has been
TheIproposed drawing correction, filed on-________, ]fl

has (have) been

El approved by the

E2 approved. 01 disapproved (see explanation).

I2L12

Ackrowaedgment is made of the claim for priority under U.S.C. 119. The certified copy has EC been received

L

not been received

C)
M8

been filied in parent application, serial no.

f____________ iled on

2

Since this application appears to be In condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in isccordance with the practice under Ex partseOuayle, 1935 C.D. 11; 4530.G. 213. Oather

Ic

EXAMINER'S ACTION
P1T-Ws gwev 9,M)

Dockets.Justia.com

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

-2-

1.

This communication is responsive to the applicant's

ammendment filed September 7, 1993.

2.

A record of the interview of July 13, 1993 with Mr. P.

Hickman and Mr. J. Regal is included with this communication.

3.

Claims 4-7, 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 112, second

paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Addressing claim 4, althought it may seem to a user that the button gesture has meaning to the button image, it actually has meaning to the computer (not an image). The language "button

means", used before ammendment was broad enough to encompass the computer (so long as it had a button). (Claim 8) Addressing the nature of the buttons, the applicant recites that the
".

.. .process

is determined by the This

nature of said button image and what gesture'is detected." implies that it is the shape of the button that determines (causes) the process, not the computer (the button image and process are correlated).

For purposes of further examination, it

will be interpreted that the button image and the associated process are correlated to conform to the intent of the invention.

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

After further consideration, claim 18 was not indefinite as it originally stood, however changes to the independent claims now render it indefinite. Any claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 112 not previously mentioned is rejected for depending either directly or indirectly from an indefinite claim.

4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. S 103 which forms 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.

5.

Claims 1-i8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 103 as being

unpatentable over Liljenwall in view of Mizzi. Addressing Claim 1, Liljenwall teaches a gesture sensitive button that consists of: digital computation means, a screen

means coupled to said digital computation means, pointer means

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

-4-

for pointing to locations on said screen means (namiely, 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 responsive to at least two different button gestures. Liljenwall

contains gesture recognition means (logic for decoding buttons, g.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". 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 col 5, lines 34-36) area of the screen 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. 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.

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

-5-

Referring to claim 4, please see the discussion in the arguments section concerning the "Enter" and "Clear Last Digit" functions. Assuming the intent of claim 4 to be that the

gestures are not meaningless to the computer, that is clearly the case in Liljenwall (fig 8, q.v.). Addressing claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 12 and 16, the prior art shows the image of a button (the "key", Mizzi col 5, line 31), 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 a

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. Referring

to claim 16, Liljenwall (col 4, lines 34-42) teaches looking up in memory (using a LUT) 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. Addressing claims S, 6, 13, 14, and 15, the choice of a tap,

"OX" or a "t," seen as an obvious choice of design. is

Please note

the discussion of the "IXIV and 'IV"in the arguments section. Further note that one of the allowable gestures of Liljenwall is a "tap", or single press (fig 8,
"1+"

sign).

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

-6-

Referring to claim 8, the button of Liljenwall is present before the gesture is detected. The interpretation (or

"determining... 1')of the gesture occurs after the stylus (finger) is lifted. 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 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 13, Mizzi They are used

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

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

-7-

b5.

The applicant's arguments filed on September 7, 1993 have

been fully considered, but they are not deemed to be persuasive. The applicant has ammended claim 1 to explicitly claim the button means as a button image, the screen means as a display screen means, and that the button is substantially immediately responsive to the gestures. The applicant has argued (but not claimed) that the his 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. In addition, the applicant points out that Liljenwall It was not claimed that the applicant's

teaches a modal system. invention was non-modal.

Admittedly, Liljenwall does teach a modal system, however, within each mode, a number of gestures (numbers, etc) may be recognized. For exam~ple, (fig 4, q.v. cal 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

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

-8-

use the same segments, but in reverse order.

They have two

different meanings to the device of Liljenwall. Use of the tern "physical buttons" by the applicant leads the examiner to believe the applicant is considering each segment of Li1jenwall's device as a button and is questioning how each one of said segments can be considered "gesture sensitive". The

examiner referred to the button means (the button) as the entire input area of Liljenwall (in the first office action). The

manner in which the claims are ammended leads the examiner to believe the applicant further implies that the button (array of segments) of Liljenwall are not on a touch screen. Liljenwall

does, however, teach that his buttons are positioned to overlay a display, and further that the segments may be made of "1... a light transmitting material." Ccol 3, line 11; q.v. col 3, lines 8-19).

Thus it is a touch screen in that it consists of a display that can sense touch or position of a user's touch. The touch screen

of Liljenwall differs from those such as the touch screen of the Apple Newton only in resolution. Mizzi teaches a soft button

perhaps more similar as to what the applicant had in mind, that is, he teaches an area of a touch screen of higher resolution which is labeled as to its function and further implies that the function (or functions) of the button is executed when the button is pressed, or substantially immediately afterwards (col 5, lines 34-36). Mizzi was incorporated to help clarify the nature of the

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

9

button and touch screen.

The motivation for the combination of

Liljenwall and Mizzi (as mentioned in the first office action) was to "maximize the display area",, that is to utilize space in an effecient manner. The obvious result of combining Liljenwall with Mizzi would not be a plurality of unlabeled, undifferentiated soft buttons, each of which accept an on/off type input as asserted by the applicant, but rather would be similar to the teachings of Liljenwall in "soft button" form. That is, Liljenwall teaches
--

the concept of the (lower resolution

which could be higher

resolution nowdays considering the advances in technology since 1979) gesture sensitive (recognizes characters and controls from strokes across the touch screen), and Mizzi shows the concept of a virtual, or "soft" button (higher resolution) which may be labeled and located anywhere on the touch screen, thus the obvious combination of Liljenwall and Mizzi would be a labeled gesture sensitive button which may either high or low resolution and located anywhere on the touch screen. Of further note,

substantially all mechanical touch screens use "on/off" means (crossed wires, etc) to determine the position on a touch screen. In a higher resolution embodiment of Liljenwall, although each individual point would be an "on/off" switch, the plurality of "on/off" switches would constitute a touch screen. It so happens

in the case of Liljenwall, that the particular data set does not

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

-10-

require a high resolution, but if it did, it would be obvious to increase the resolution (number of buttons). An example is

taught by Liljenwall (see figs 4 and 8) where he increases both the resolution and the data set. Incidentally, many image

recognition techniques involve the reduction of resolution, or averaging over areas of an image (or gesture) for recognition. Mizzi (col 5, lines 34-36) imply that the button may be labeled, however does not explicitly say that they say what types of inputs they will accept. In this day and age, when one sees a

soft button on a screen, it is clear that the way to actuate it was to touch it. That was not always the case. Several years

ago, when touch screens were not as common, the words "Touch Here" (or the like) would appear in the box as to not confuse the user. Now, a simple "OK"' is enough to enable the user to operate Likewise, if the button were sensitive to checks, it

the button.

would be obvous that instead of saying "Touch Here", it would say "Check Here" or "XI to use the buttons. Here" (or both) in order to enable the user Liljenwall addresses the issue: "When the

digit segment codes are appropriately chosen....the strokes can follow the user's natural strokes for writing the digits by

hand.,

The system thus requires only a little learning."

(col

3, lines 60-63), meaning that if the "codes" were chosen in a simple manner, such as 'IS"for store, "IR"for recall, "1W" for go to watch, etc (see fig 8), the device would be easier to use. In

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

-11-

the case one of the controls was not obvious, the user would have to memorize the particular stroke. In light of the teachings of

MRizzi, who shows that the buttons may be labeled, it would be obvious that the buttons could be labeled to their inputs ("Check Here"l, see above) so that the user did not have to memorize carry

a written list of the gestures--that is, they could be written on
the buttons themselves. claims 2-6 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, and are still rendered obvious. The "ixit and "I"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 "XI" and

IVI

(which

incidentally are commonly used as gestures to indicate to a schoolboy whether or not he has answered a problem or question correctly or not) could distinguish an invention as patentable, why not "0"1 and "li"? Both are easy to draw. The llXll and III" are

thus deemed obvious choices of design.

Claim 8 has been ammended so that the button is provided on a computer display (similar to that of Mizzi), the gesture would

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

-12-

be detected on the display (button), and that the process is determined by the nature of the button image. As mentioned earlier, the display of Mizzi is a computer display in the sense the applicant implied during the interview of July 13, 1993 with Mr. Hickman and Hr. Regal (they demonstrated a hand held computer). Clearly, if the button is

gesture sensitive, as is the case of Liljenwall, the area where the gesture is sensed would be the area of the button, which could be on a computer screen (Mizzi). The language "nature of said button image" does not exclude a button with writing within or in close proximity and is therefore obvious. Mizzi teaches (col 1, lines 61-68) that the

position and outline (i.e. nature) of the touch-sensitive area (button) are "entirely programmed by the user", implying the user can choose any position or outline (shape) for his button. The applicant argues that each of claims 2-7 add an element not shown or suggested, and that each of claims 9-18 add a new step not shown or suggested in the prior art. The examiner shows

that each element or step as introduced by claims 2-7 or 9-18 is suggested, if not explicitly shown in the prior art.

7.

Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P.

rejection.

Serial Number: Art Unit: 2609

07/985,588

-13-3

S 706.07(a).

Applicant is reminded of tbe extension of time

policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. S 1.136(a).

A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE IS FILED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE MAILING DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION AND THE ADVISORY ACTION IS NOT MAILED UNTIL AFTER THE END OF THE THREE-MONTH SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD, THEN THE SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD WILL EXPIRE ON THE DATE THE ADVISORY ACTION IS MAILED, AND ANY EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. S 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION.

9.

Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed 305-4847.

to Aaron Banerjee at telephone #' (703)

ALVIN E.OBERLEY SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER ART UNIT 269

Qa0cl

C,

r-

fl

-Si

I-

In the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Applicant: Beernink, et a]l Applicant's Ref: P1017 (APLIP053) Serial No: 07/985,588 Filed: 12/03/92 Tidle: Gesture Sensitive Buttons for Graphical User Interfaces

Examiner: Banerjee, A. Group Art Unit: 2609

Amendment B
(Under 37 C.F.R. 1. 116) Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 Dear Sir: In response to the Final Office Action dated 11/15/93, with a two-month period of response extending through January 18, 1994, please enter the following amendments and remarks:

In t~he lims
All pending claims have been reproduced below for the convenience of the Examiner. Claims which have been changed by this amendment are indicated with an asterisk (*)

* 1. (amended) A gesture sensitive button for a graphical user interface comprising:

digital computation means; display screen means coupled to said digital computation means; pointer means for pointing to locations on said display screen means;

2 button image displayed on said display screen means, said button image being [substantially] immediately responsive without any intermediate in2ut to at least two different button gestures made by said pointer means on said display screen means; gesture recognition means for detecting gestures made on said display screen means by said pointer means and operative to initiate a process in said digital computation means upon the detection of said at least two different button gestures, where said initiated process is determined by which button gesture is detected.

2. A gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 1 wherein said digital computation means, said display screen means, and said pointer means are part of a pen-based computer system.

3. A gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 2 wherein said display screen means comprises a touch-sensitive screen and said pointer means comprises a stylus.

AIN
*4. (amended) A gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 3 wherein a button gesture is a gesture made [by] with said stylus on said touch-sensitive screen which both contacts said button

Inimage and which has meaning to said digital computation means based upon a context associated

'<<withksaid

button image.

5. A gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 4 wherein one of said button gestures is a '3 tap made by the tip of said stylus on said screen over said button image.

6. A gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 5 wherein another of said button gestures is selected from the group of check-marks and X-marks and is made by said stylus on said display ~screen means over said button image.

7. A gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 6 wherein said button image displays an altered image upon the detection of a button gesture.

*8. (amended) A method for providing a gesture sensitive button for a graphical user interface comprising the steps of:

3
providing a button image on a computer display screen;, detecting a gesture made upon said computer display screen by a pointer means; determining whether said gesture is associated with said button image: and initiating one of at least two processes if said gesture is associated with said button image, where said initiated process is determined [by] based on both a context associated with [the nature of] said button image and [what] said gesture[ is detected].

9. A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 8 wherein said button image comprises an image of a button displayed upon said computer display screen.

10. A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 8 further
comprising the step of altering the image of said button image after said determining step determines that said gesture is associated with said button image.

11. A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 8 wherein said computer display screen is a touch sensitive screen and said pointer means is a stylus.

12. A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 8 wherein said determining step includes the steps of determining whether said gesture contacts said button image and determining whether said gesture is a recognizable gesture in the context of said button image.

13. A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 12 wherein a tap gesture is a recognizable gesture for said button image.

14. A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 13 wherein a check-mark gesture is a recognizable gesture for said button image.

15. A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 13 wherein an X mark gesture is a recognizable gesture for said button image.

16. A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 8 wherein said determining step includes the step of comparing said gesture with a set of recognizable gestures for said button image.

A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 16 wherein 17. said initiating step includes the step of initiating at least one process step when said gesture is one of said set of recognizable gestures.

A method for providing a gesture sensitive button as recited in claim 17 wherein 18. said initiating step initiates a plurality of process steps as determined by said gesture.

REMARKS Amendments have been made to claims 1,4, and 8, and claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Reconsideration of the.application as amended is respectfully requested.

Claims 4-7 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. Amendments to these claims have been made to more clearly point out Applicant's invention. More particularly, claims 4 and 8 have been amended to state that there is a context associated with the button image for basing a response to a gesture. Support for these amendments is found on page 11, line 20. In view of these amendments, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 be withdrawn.

Claims 1-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li1jenwall et al. in view of Mizzi. In the second Office Action, the Examiner argues that the segments of Li1jenwall et al. together comprise a "button means" or "touch screen" for accepting gestures, and that this touch screen differs from Applicant's only in resolution. The Examiner further argues that Mizzi teaches a "soft button" that can be displayed on a screen. The Examiner concluded that the result of combining the two references is a labeled, gesture sensitive button of either high or low resolution located anywhere on the touch screen. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this conclusion, as explained below.

In Li1jenwall et at, segments are positioned to overlie a display screen, or to lie above or

next to the display screen. When overlying the display screen, the segments are transparent to maintain constant viewability of the display screen. Taken as a whole, the overlying segments together form an input area capable of receiving input gestures over a display screen, which can be
construed as forming a touch sensitive screen, as the Examiner pointed out. However, they can in

no way be construed as a soft button on a screen. These segments are therefore the equivalent of the entire screen 20 of Applicant's device as seen in Fig. 2. Therefore, the segments of Liljenwall et al are not the equivalent of a button, but are instead the equivalent of a touch-sensitive screen.

Mizzi teaches a hand-held computer that has a touch sensitive screen. Specific areas of the screen can be programmed to display an outline of a position of a touch sensitive area. This touch sensitive area can also be labeled as to its meaning and operation, resulting in the display of keys on a keyboard, for example. The Examiner argues that it is obvious to combine this teaching of this "soft" button from Mizzi with the touch sensitive display of Li1jenwall et al. to produce Applicant's claimed invention. Applicant claims in amended claim 1 a button image that is immediately responsive to at least two different button gestures without any intermediate input. Support for "without any intermediate input" is found on page 11, lines 3-17, of the specification and further in the table shown in Figure 9. With the feature of a response occurring without an intermediate input, the claim more distinctly states the non-modal aspect of Applicant's invention, which was distinguished in the Applicant's response to the first Office Action. This is clearly different from Liljenwall et al. in which a modal system is taught, where the input screen is switched between various states. As stated and shown in Applicant's specification, a tap, X-mark, and check-mark each have an associated script of action, which is performed when the gesture is found to be associated with a button image. These scripts would not be performed if the gesture initiating the actions is not associated with the button, as stated on page 11, lines 16-17. Therefore, gestures over the buttons are contexI sensitive, unlike Mizzi. It is therefore not only the determining of the gesture made that determines the script of action, but also the context associated with the button. These features of Applicant's invention are dissimilar from the teachings or suggestions of
L11jenwall et at. and Mizzi, either singly or in combination. Li1jenwall et al. teaches touch screens

responsive to multiple gestures. Touch screens responsive to multiple gestures are admitted prior art. Mizzi teaches soft buttons. Soft buttons are admitted prior art. However, neither shows or suggests soft buttons responsive to multiple gestures, where the gestures are sensitive to contexts associated with the buttons.

By these arguments, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 8, and through their respective dependency, claims 2-7 and 9-18, are not disclosed nor reasonably suggested by the art of record and respectfully requests that 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. Respectfully submitted,

C}tt4Iwyo4kt
Judy M. Maher Reg. 37,388 Palo Alto, California
415-328-6500

PATENT In M a$i Group Art Unit: 2609 Examiner: Banerjee, A. Attorney Docket No.

Beermink et al. Serial No. 07/985,588 Filed: 12/3/92
For:

P1017/P053

Date: January 18, 1994

GESTURE SENSITIVE BUTT?ONS FOR
GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES

Ithrbni t'eti thsorepndence Firs Clas Maito h y =nro1 tasPostal Sevce a" is being deposited with Co nite etsad Trd . ahntn, 20231 on Si ed: oberta A. oree

Comnmissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, DC 20231

Transmitted herewith is an amendment in the above-entitled application. The fee has been calculated as shown below. Claims Remaining After Arndment TOTAL CLAIMS INDEP CLANMS Highest Previously Paid For OTHER THAN A SMALL ENTITY

Present

SMALL ENTITY

Minu

Extra

RATE EE

OR
OR OR $230

RAThEL

18 02 02

x1l

=$

X22 = $ 00.00 X74 = $00.00

X37 = $

I] Multiple Dependent Claim Present
and Fee Not Previously Paid TOTAL

$
_____

x

No additional fee is due. the amount of $_ to cover the Enclosed is our Check No. additional claim fee. Please charge any additional fees, or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account No. 08-2120 (Order No. APLIP053 . A copy of this sheet is enclosed. Respectfully submitted,
_________in

Reg. No. 37,388 Hickrm & Beyer P.O. Box 61059 Palo Alto, CA 94306 [phone]