In Re: Apple Inc.
685 F. App'x 907
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Apple owns U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 claiming software for touchscreens that distinguishes a scroll from a gesture based on number of input points (single touch = scroll; two or more = gesture).
- Independent claims recite a limitation to determine whether an event invokes a "scroll or gesture" by distinguishing a single input point from "two or more" input points; dependent claims recite a "rubberbanding" scrolling feature.
- A third party requested ex parte reexamination; the PTO Examiner rejected all claims as anticipated/obvious based on prior art (including Nomura, Hillis, and Lira); the PTAB affirmed and denied rehearing relief.
- Apple appealed, arguing the Board mis-construed (1) the phrase "two or more" in the scroll-or-gesture limitation and (2) the rubberbanding limitation (directionality of slide-back).
- The Federal Circuit reviews claim construction de novo where the intrinsic record controls and applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in reexamination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Apple) | Defendant's Argument (PTO/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of "two or more" in "scroll or gesture" limitation | "Two or more" is an atomic unit: all multi-touch inputs (2,3,4,...) must be gestures; claim embodies a single rule separating every input into scroll vs gesture | BRI permits "two or more" to mean either two inputs or more-than-two inputs; claims distinguish single-touch from any multi-touch | Court affirmed Board: "or" creates alternatives; claims read on single-touch vs any multi-touch (BRI) |
| Meaning of "rubberbanding" (direction of content movement after scrolling) | Rubberbanding requires sliding content backwards (opposite direction) at end of scroll as defined in the specification | Rubberbanding not limited to direction; it generally controls scrolled-content movement; Examiner applied broad definition to encompass Lira | Court vacated Board's rejection of claims reciting rubberbanding: specification lexicographically defines rubberbanding as sliding content back (opposite direction); remanded for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Prolitec, Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Board claim constructions and underlying factual findings)
- Teva Pharm. U.S.A., Inc. v. Sandoz, 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (role of appellate review for factual findings in claim construction)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (when intrinsic record fully determines construction, review is de novo)
- In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims receive broadest reasonable interpretation during reexamination)
- In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (BRI must be consistent with specification and record)