US 7844915

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 7844915.

Let me look for the claim text and any recent 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me confirm the post-reexamination status and check specifically for any 2026 CAFC activity.

US Patent 7,844,915 — Analyst Summary

Note on scope of my search: I ran targeted searches against publicly indexed USPTO materials, Google Patents, CourtListener/Federal Circuit files, ITC, and district-court records. I found no 2026 CAFC docket and no 2026 USPTO proceeding tied to patent 7,844,915. All litigation and appellate activity I located for this specific patent is from roughly 2011–2017. I could not complete live 2026 docket verification before reaching my tool-call limit, so treat the "no 2026 activity" statement as "none found," not a certified negative.

Bibliographic Data

Abstract (as issued)

"At least certain embodiments of the present disclosure include an environment with user interface software interacting with a software application. A method for operating through an application programming interface (API) in this environment includes transferring a set bounce call. The method further includes setting at least one of maximum and minimum bounce values. The set bounce call causes a bounce of a scrolled region in an opposite direction of a scroll based on a region past an edge of the scrolled region being visible in a display region at the end of the scroll."

Important nuance: the abstract describes the bounce/API-architecture aspect, but the granted claims are directed to something different — the touch-input disambiguation logic (single-finger = scroll vs. multi-finger = gesture). The abstract and the claims are poorly aligned; this mismatch was repeatedly raised in litigation and reexamination.

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

All three independent claims recite the same core logic in three statutory formats.

Claim 1 — Method

1. Receive a user input on a touch-sensitive display integrated with the device (one or more contact points).
2. Create an event object in response to that input.
3. Determine whether the event object invokes a scroll or a gesture operation by distinguishing between:
   • a single input point → interpreted as a scroll, and
   • two or more input points → interpreted as a gesture.
4. Issue at least one scroll call or gesture call depending on the determination.
5. If a scroll call issues: scroll a window having a view tied to the event object, by an amount of scroll, stopping at a predetermined position relative to the user input.
6. If a gesture call issues: scale (zoom) the view associated with the event object based on the two-or-more-point input.

In short: count the fingers; one finger scrolls, two-or-more pinch/zoom.

Claim 8 — Machine-readable storage medium
The same six steps as Claim 1, expressed as executable program instructions that, when run, cause a data processing system to perform them. The scroll-responding step here omits the "predetermined position/amount of scroll" language present in Claim 1 — a difference that mattered in claim-construction disputes.

Claim 15 — Apparatus (means-plus-function, §112 ¶6)
The same six steps expressed as "means for…" elements: means for receiving user input through a hardware device; means for creating an event object; means for determining scroll vs. gesture by single-vs-multi-point distinction; means for issuing scroll/gesture calls; and means for responding to each call. The specification's corresponding structures were identified during reexamination as the multi-touch driver (col. 12), window server, user interface software, and window/view.

Key dependent claims:

• Claims 2, 9, 16 — rubberbanding: a scrolling region is held by a predetermined maximum displacement when it exceeds a window edge, then snaps back (the "taut rubber band" overscroll effect).
• Claims 3–4, 10–11, 17–18 — attaching scroll indicators to a content edge or a window edge.
• Claims 5, 12, 19 — the scroll/gesture determination is based on receiving a drag input for a certain time period.
• Claims 6, 13, 20 — rotating the view in response to a multi-point gesture.
• Claims 7, 14, 21 — device-type recitations (portable device, multi-touch device, wireless device, cell phone, etc.).

Litigation and Post-Grant History (relevant context)

• Einstein/Apple v. Samsung, N.D. Cal. No. 5:11-cv-01846 — the '915 patent was one of the patents Apple asserted; the August 2012 jury verdict found Samsung infringed (the '915 patent was among the asserted patents, though see the note below on which claims survived).
• Apple v. HTC, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-797 — the '915 patent was asserted.
• Ex parte reexamination 90/012,332 (filed May 30, 2012, Art Unit 3992) — a third party requested reexamination of all 21 claims. The examiner rejected the claims as anticipated by Hillis (US 7,724,242) and obvious over Nomura (JP 2000-163031) in view of Rubine. The PTAB affirmed all rejections (Decision on Appeal, Dec. 9, 2014; Decision on Rehearing, Jan. 4, 2016).
• In re Apple Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 2016-1402 (opinion 2017) — Apple appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's broad construction of "two or more input points" (i.e., "or" creates alternatives; a device that distinguishes one point from two points satisfies the limitation notwithstanding the patentee's "atomic unit" argument), but reversed/vacated the Board's construction of "rubberbanding," holding the specification defined that term and the Board's construction was too broad, and remanded for further proceedings. I recommend verifying the exact final disposition and current claim status in the reexamination certificate before relying on the claims as enforceable — I did not complete that verification.

Other identified dockets (all pre-2018, from Google Patents/Unified Patents litigation data): CAFC Nos. 12-1105, 12-1506, 12-1600, 12-1606, 13-1129, 13-1146, 14-1335, 14-1368, 15-1029, 15-1857, 15-2088; Supreme Court No. 15-777; Delaware D. Ct. No. 1:11-cv-00611.

Uncertainty / Caveats

1. No 2026 CAFC or USPTO activity for this patent was found in my searches. If your task requires affirmative 2026 verification, that remains unconfirmed — my tool limit cut off the final checks.
2. Current enforceability of the claims is uncertain. The reexamination resulted in all claims being rejected and the PTAB affirmance was partly reversed on appeal. Whether the claims survived (by amendment), were cancelled, or were confirmed needs a reexamination certificate check.
3. Inventor city for Scott Herz differs across sources (Santa Clara vs. San Jose). Not material, but flagged per the literal-interpretation rule.
4. Expiration: Google Patents lists an adjusted expiration of 2028-08-12, which reflects the §154(b) adjustment over the 20-year term from the Jan. 7, 2007 filing.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7844915. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Let me get the full case list from the Stanford NPE database and details on the HTC and ITC actions.

Let me research the Federal Circuit appeals and the HTC/ITC outcomes.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915

Patent: U.S. 7,844,915 B2 — "Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations" (filed Jan. 7, 2007; issued Nov. 30, 2010; inventors Andrew Platzer & Scott Herz; assignee Apple Inc.). The patent is the "pinch-to-zoom"/scroll-vs-gesture patent ('915). Note that its specification also covers rubberbanding/bounce, so some sources loosely describe it as the "rubberbanding" patent — treat such labels with care.

Bottom line: All known litigation over this patent was brought by Apple as plaintiff/asserting party against two competitors — Samsung and HTC — plus a related ITC Section 337 action and a long-running ex parte reexamination with appeals to the PTAB and the Federal Circuit, and one trip to the Supreme Court (on a different patent).

1. Known Cases (asserting the '915 patent)

2. Details and Outcomes

A. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (N.D. Cal. 5:11‑cv‑01846‑LHK)

This is the principal case. Apple accused Samsung of infringing several utility and design patents, including the '915 patent, over the iPhone/iPad product line.

• Aug. 24, 2012 jury verdict: Samsung found to infringe Apple's utility patents (including the '915 patent) and design patents; ~$1.05 billion awarded, later reduced.
• '915 damages specifically: roughly $113M in lost profits (on 10 products) plus about $31M in reasonable royalties — approximately $146 million attributable to the '915 patent. This was the only utility patent for which Apple sought lost profits.
• Appeal — Fed. Cir. Nos. 2014‑1335, 2015‑1029 (consolidated), decided May 18, 2015: reported at 786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit affirmed the infringement finding and the finding that claim 8 of the '915 patent was not invalid, and affirmed the damages for the '915 patent; it reversed the trade-dress judgment, reducing the award from ~$930M to ~$548M. See Apple's own description: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 786 F.3d 983, 1003–05 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
• Supreme Court — Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15‑777 (U.S.): cert. granted on the design-patent damages question (article of manufacture / § 289 total profit). Decided Dec. 6, 2016; the judgment was vacated in part and remanded as to design-patent damages only. Samsung did not petition for certiorari on any '915 issue, so the '915 liability/damages findings were unaffected.
• Fed. Cir. No. 2015‑2088: Samsung's appeal from the district court's partial final judgment (~$548M, of which ~$149M was for the three utility patents including the '915 patent). The Federal Circuit summarily denied the appeal (order Oct. 13, 2015; rehearing en banc denied Nov. 19, 2015 per Apple's brief). Samsung paid the '915 damages in December 2015.
• Settlement: On June 27, 2018, the parties settled and the case was dismissed, mooting Apple's motion for supplemental damages and Samsung's motion (based on the PTAB/Federal Circuit reexamination of the '915 patent) to avoid the ~$146M in '915 damages.

B. Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp. (D. Del. 1:11‑cv‑00611)

Filed July 11, 2011 in the District of Delaware asserting the '915 patent (with other Apple patents). By stipulation of the parties, the court stayed the case pending resolution of the parallel ITC action. In its stay order (referencing C.A. No. 10‑167‑GMS and 11‑cv‑611), the court noted both parties agreed the '915 and other asserted patents overlapped with ITC 337‑TA‑797. The case was later dismissed as part of the global resolution of the Apple–HTC disputes.

C. ITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑797

• Complaint filed July 8, 2011; investigation instituted Aug. 5, 2011 (published 76 Fed. Reg. 50253, Aug. 12, 2011).
• Asserted '915 claims: 1–5, 7–12, 14–19, and 21.
• ALJ Gildea issued a claim-construction order construing, inter alia, "view," "rubberbanding," "event object," and "window" (all agreed by Apple, the ITC Investigative Staff, and HTC).
• Caveat: I could not, within the sources retrieved, confirm the precise final disposition of the '915 patent in the ITC's final determination. My recollection is that Apple did not obtain a Section 337 violation on the '915 patent in this investigation, but I do not have a verified citation for that specific holding here and would want to confirm it against the Commission's final determination (Inv. No. 337‑TA‑797, USITC Pub.) before relying on it.

3. Related Validity Proceedings (not "litigation" but case-critical)

Ex parte reexamination 90/012,332 (of the '915 patent), Art Unit 3992 — requested May 30, 2012 by an anonymous third-party requester (widely reported as Samsung/Bryan Cave LLP as requester's counsel).

• Dec. 19, 2012: Examiner rejected all claims (Hillis, Nomura, Rubine, etc.).
• July 26, 2013: Final rejection of all claims.
• PTAB Appeal 2014‑007899: Decision on Appeal mailed Dec. 9, 2014, affirming rejection of claims 1–21; rehearing denied Jan. 4, 2016 (see Finnegan-hosted PTAB decision).
• Federal Circuit appeal (In re Apple), No. 2016‑1402, decided April 2017: According to secondary reporting, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of some claims but reversed and remanded as to certain claims (reported as claims 2, 9, and 16). I flag this as reported by news sources (e.g., ETNews, Apr. 18, 2017); I was unable to verify the precise claim-by-claim disposition at the court's opinion level within the retrieved materials.

Separately, Samsung v. Apple, No. 15‑777 (U.S. Supreme Court) is listed among the '915 patent's litigation because the district-court judgment that included '915 damages was the vehicle for Samsung's Supreme Court petition — but the Supreme Court's decision addressed only design-patent damages, not the '915 patent.

4. Additional Federal Circuit Case Numbers Associated with This Patent

The Google Patents litigation data (via Unified Patents) lists these additional Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proceedings tied to this patent's family: 12‑1105, 12‑1506, 12‑1600, 12‑1606, 13‑1129, 13‑1146, 14‑1335, 14‑1368, 15‑1029, 15‑1857, 15‑2088. Most of these correspond to the Apple v. Samsung appeals (before/after the 2012–2014 judgments and the '915 reexamination). I have verified specific identities/outcomes only for 14‑1335 / 15‑1029 (the May 18, 2015 consolidated decision) and 15‑2088 (summarily denied). I have not independently verified the mapping of 12‑1105, 12‑1506, 12‑1600, 12‑1606, 13‑1129, 13‑1146, 14‑1368, or 15‑1857, and the reexamination appeal number (2016‑1402) does not appear in that Google Patents list — so the list appears incomplete.

5. Databases and Caveats

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7844915) lists cases involving this patent, including Apple v. HTC Corp. (1:11‑cv‑00611, D. Del.) and Apple v. Samsung (5:11‑cv‑01846, N.D. Cal.), with Apple classified as a "product company" asserter. The retrieved snippet showed a truncated third entry that I could not resolve; the database likely lists at least one additional case.
• Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US7844915/en) flags "Family has litigation" and links to the CAFC, N.D. Cal., D. Del., ITC, and Supreme Court matters above.
• Limitations: I was unable to verify the exact ITC 337‑TA‑797 final outcome on the '915 patent, the precise claim-by-claim result of the Federal Circuit reexamination appeal (2016‑1402), and the complete current docket status of the D. Del. 1:11‑cv‑00611 case. Where I state those, I have flagged them as reported-but-unverified rather than confirmed. I found no litigation asserting the '915 patent outside the Apple–Samsung and Apple–HTC disputes (i.e., no NPE/PAE suits, and no other defendants) in the sources reviewed.

PTAB / AIA-Trial Analysis — US 7,844,915 B2 ("Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations")

Tool-limit caveat, stated up front: I ran out of search steps before completing a final certificate-issuance check. Everything below is grounded in the structured PTAB-proceedings block supplied in this prompt plus verified public sources; the one open item (the ex parte reexamination certificate itself) is flagged explicitly rather than guessed.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,844,915: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent searches turned up no petition ever filed — no institution decision, no FWD, no settlement, no § 315(e) estoppel. What did happen is a pre-AIA ex parte reexamination (Control No. 90/012,332) that invalidated all 21 claims on paper and was litigated all the way through a PTAB appeal (Appeal 2014-007899) and a Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2016-1402) — that is PTAB activity, but it is not an AIA trial. Defensive bottom line for a defendant: you face no IPR estoppel at all — but you also likely face no live claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–21, and the Board reinstated and then refused to disturb the rejections of the remaining rubberbanding claims 2, 9, and 16 on remand. If the reexamination certificate issued as expected, a demand letter citing any claim of the '915 patent is citing a cancelled claim. Verify the certificate before you rely on that.

Non-AIA PTAB proceeding (the only PTAB matter on this patent)

Appeal 2014-007899 — Ex parte Apple, Inc. (Reexamination Control 90/012,332) — NOT an AIA trial

• Type: Appeal from an ex parte reexamination under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) — not an IPR, PGR, or CBM. The AIA trial provisions (§§ 311–319, 321–329) never applied here; the request was filed before the AIA trial regime took effect and this vehicle is a unilateral, examiner-run reexamination. There is no petitioner, no patent owner response phase as of right, and no statutory § 315(e)(2) estoppel.
• Requester / real party in interest: an anonymous third party. Apple's own status filing to Judge Koh stated the reexamination "was requested by an anonymous third party (not Samsung)" (Apple's Status Update Regarding '915 Patent, N.D. Cal. 5:11-cv-01846, Dkt. 3489). This matters: there is no identifiable petitioner or privy against whom estoppel could run.
• Filed: 2012-05-30 (reexamination request); order granting reexamination mailed 2012-08-17. First Office action mailed 2012-12-19; Final Office action mailed 2013-07-26; Advisory Action affirming the final rejection of all claims dated 2013-11-20.
• Status (verbatim-style from the record): "Active, expires 2028-08-12" per Google Patents' automated legal-status field — but that is an expiration-date assumption, not a claim-status determination. The substantive record is the opposite: every claim was finally rejected, and the Board sustained those rejections. Treat the "Active" label as unreliable here (see Contradictions below).
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Mahshid D. Saadat (writing), Carl W. Whitehead Jr., and Jason J. Chung, Technology Center 3900 — confirmed on the 2019-08-29 Decision on Request for Rehearing (USPTO communication, 90/012,332, mailed 2019-08-29).
• Grounds (all pre-AIA, examinational — no statutory § 102/§ 103 framing in the AIA sense, but the same statutory predicates): all 21 claims rejected. Reference set: Hillis (US 7,724,242), Nomura (JP 2000-163031 A), Rubine (Dean Harris Rubine, "The Automatic Recognition of Gestures," CMU-CS-91-202, Dec. 1991), Lira (WO 03/081458), Makus (US 6,757,673), plus Ullmann (US 6,677,965) and Hill (US 2005/0057524) cited in the reexamination order.
  • Claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19–21: anticipated (pre-AIA § 102(e)) by Hillis.
  • Claims 2, 9, 16: obvious over Hillis + Lira.
  • Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18: obvious over Hillis + Makus.
  • All of the above also rejected as obvious over Nomura + Rubine combinations (with Lira and Makus respectively for the dependent claims).
• Institution equivalent: reexamination ordered on 2012-08-17 (the § 1.525 substantial-new-question gate).
• Decision on Appeal (the closest analogue to an FWD): mailed 2014-12-09 — the Board affirmed the examiner's rejections of claims 1–21. Decision on Request for Rehearing mailed 2016-01-04 — rehearing denied; the Board held Apple's arguments were either unpersuasive or (as to the Lira/rubberbanding argument) untimely and waived under Ex parte Borden. (The Federal Circuit later disagreed on waiver — see below.) The rehearing decision text is reproduced at Finnegan's copy of the 90/012,332 Decision on Request for Rehearing.
• Federal Circuit appeal: **Apple v. — i.e., In re Apple, Inc., No. 2016-1402 (Fed. Cir. 2017)**, nonprecedential, reported at 685 F. App'x 907, opinion issued 2017-04-14. Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED. (CourtListener opinion; text also at N.D. Cal. Dkt. 3489, Ex. A.)
  • Affirmed: the Board's construction of the "scroll or gesture" / "two or more input points" limitation, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation. The court held "or" in "two or more" creates alternatives — a gesture operation occurs if either two input points or more than two input points are detected — and rejected Apple's "atomic unit" argument. Because Hillis and Nomura each disclose a single-input scroll and a two-input gesture, the rejections of claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–21 stood: "The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's determination that claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–21 are unpatentable, In re Apple, Inc., 685 F. App'x 907, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2017), so those claims and their patentability were not implicated in the remand proceedings here." (2019-08-29 Decision on Request for Rehearing, n.2.)
  • Vacated: the Board's construction of "rubberbanding." Acting as lexicographers, the inventors defined the term in the specification (col. 5): "At the end of the scroll, the content slides back making the region outside of the content no longer visible on the display." The court held "rubberbanding requires the content to slide backwards at the end of a scroll" and that Lira's forward snap-to-next-column disclosure therefore does not read on it. The court vacated the rejections of claims 2, 9, and 16 and remanded.
• Post-remand: Decision on Remand mailed 2018-03-27 — the Board again sustained the rejections of all claims, i.e., 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19–21 (Hillis); 2, 9, 16 (Hillis + Lira); 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18 (Hillis + Makus); plus the parallel Nomura + Rubine grounds. Apple's Request for Rehearing dated 2018-05-29 was denied by Decision on Request for Rehearing mailed 2019-08-29 (same panel, Saadat writing).
• Settlement / termination: none applicable — an ex parte reexamination has no adverse-party settlement mechanism, and the anonymous requester was never identified.
• Practical effect in litigation: Samsung moved for JMOL of invalidity on the '915 patent in N.D. Cal., arguing the Federal Circuit had affirmed the final rejection of claim 8 (the asserted claim) and that this should wipe out ~$146 million of the roughly $548M partial judgment, including $113M+ in lost profits tied solely to '915. That motion was denied as moot when the parties settled on 2018-06-27 (PLI Patent Law Center summary).
• Defensive value: An assertion of any of claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, 17–21 today is built on claims that a Federal Circuit-affirmed PTAB decision held unpatentable — sanction-bait if the certificate cancelled them. Claims 2, 9, 16 were also rejected on remand and rehearing was denied, but they carry one more layer of procedural history (the vacatur on rubberbanding) worth checking against the certificate language.

Strategic summary

Claim status. The claim-level map is unusually complete for a pre-AIA case:

• Claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, 17–21 — held unpatentable by the Board and affirmed by the Federal Circuit in In re Apple, 685 F. App'x 907. These are the final, judicially blessed determinations. Claim 1 (method), claim 8 (machine-readable medium), and claim 15 (apparatus) — all three independent claims — are inside this group.
• Claims 2, 9, 16 — the rubberbanding claims. Vacated on appeal, re-rejected on remand (2018-03-27), rehearing denied (2019-08-29). On the PTAB record they are also unpatentable; the only open question is the certificate's final wording.
• Untested: none at the claim level — all 21 claims were within the scope of the reexamination and all 21 stand rejected. What is untested is the family (US 8,429,557; 8,661,363; 9,037,995; 9,448,712; 9,760,272; 10,481,785; 10,817,162). I did not verify whether AIA trials exist against any continuation — flagging that as an open check, because a plaintiff whose '915 claims are dead will migrate to the continuations.

Estoppel landscape — the good news for a defendant. There is no § 315(e)(2) IPR estoppel on this patent, because there was never an IPR. Ex parte reexamination carries no statutory estoppel whatsoever against the requester (and the requester is anonymous anyway). So in the abstract, the entire Hillis / Nomura / Rubine / Lira / Makus / Ullmann / Hill reference set remains formally available to a defendant in district court. In practice this is cold comfort for a plaintiff and warm comfort for a defendant, because:

1. Issue preclusion will attach to the Board's unpatentability findings. The N.D. Cal. record in this very litigation reflects the governing analysis: a PTAB final decision reviewed only by direct § 141 appeal on the agency record (no § 146 de novo route) is final for collateral-estoppel purposes even while an appeal is pending, per B&B Hardware and AbbVie (N.D. Cal. 5:11-cv-01846, Dkt. 3267).
2. Under 35 U.S.C. § 307(b) and Fresenius v. Baxter, a cancelled claim gives the patentee no cause of action — pending litigation on it becomes moot.
3. Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.570(d), if the certificate cancelled all claims, the PTO will conduct no further proceedings on that patent at all — no reissue, no further reexamination.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner — there was never a petitioner. No defensive aggregator in the chain (this was an anonymous requester during the Samsung war, not a Unified Patents–style campaign). Apple did pursue the PTAB appeal and the Federal Circuit appeal aggressively and unsuccessfully, including a rehearing request on the first Board decision and a rehearing request after remand. Notably, Apple's European counterpart fared no better and arguably worse: EPO Board of Appeal T 1459/15, decision 2018-06-21, found the added "opposite direction" feature obvious (a person skilled in GUI design would have no difficulty implementing it). The commercial takeaway: this patent family has now lost in both the U.S. agency track and at the EPO.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the ex parte reexamination certificate for Control No. 90/012,332 before doing anything else. I was unable to confirm it within my tool budget. If it cancels all claims, quote the certificate and § 307(b) in your invalidity contentions or your motion to dismiss — and note that under § 1.570(d) no further Office proceedings on the '915 patent are possible. If it cancelled only some claims, the surviving set is almost certainly empty given the 2019-08-29 rehearing denial, but confirm.
2. Cite the Federal Circuit disposition precisely. In re Apple, Inc., No. 2016-1402, 685 F. App'x 907 (Fed. Cir. 2017), affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. The affirmed-in-part portion covers claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–21. Link: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4383172](/patent/4383172)/in-re-apple-inc/
3. For the rubberbanding claims (2, 9, 16), cite the remand chain, not the 2017 opinion alone. The 2017 vacatur was cured at the agency: Decision on Remand 2018-03-27 (sustaining all rejections) and Decision on Request for Rehearing 2019-08-29 (denying rehearing). Both are PTAB records in Appeal 2014-007899.
4. Do not cite IPR estoppel; cite issue preclusion and § 307(b). There is no § 315(e)(2) hook. Argue finality of the Board's determinations under B&B Hardware / AbbVie, and — if the certificate issued — the absence of any cause of action.
5. Check the continuations. The '915 family (US 8,429,557; 8,661,363; 9,037,995; 9,448,712; 9,760,272; 10,481,785; 10,817,162) was not verified for AIA trials in this pass. If a demand letter has arrived but the '915 claims are cancelled, expect the theory to be re-papered onto a continuation, and screen those serial numbers in PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) for IPRs before responding.
6. Note the collateral consequence for licensing. Given the anonymous requester, there is no petitioner-privity tail to trace and no petition-settlement history to mine — a rare feature. All of your leverage comes from the agency determination itself, not from a co-defendant's prior IPR.

Contradictions / flags against the previously generated sections

• "Status: Active, expires 2028-08-12" (Google Patents) vs. the substantive record (all 21 claims rejected; Federal Circuit affirmed as to 19 of them; Board re-affirmed the other 3 on remand; rehearing denied 2019-08-29). Google Patents' legal-status field is an expiration-date assumption and is not a claim-status determination. Do not rely on "Active" to mean "enforceable." This is the single most important correction to the earlier summary.
• The earlier summary's recommendation to "verify the exact final disposition and current claim status in the reexamination certificate" is now partly answered: the post-remand PTAB path is documented (2018-03-27 remand decision; 2019-08-29 rehearing denial). The certificate itself remains unverified in my work.
• The earlier summary characterized the disposition as "reversed/vacated the Board's construction of 'rubberbanding'… and remanded." Accurate as to the 2017 opinion, but it omits that the vacatur did not survive remand — the Board re-rejected claims 2, 9, and 16 and denied rehearing. Net effect on claim scope: none survived.
• The earlier summary listed "Decision on Appeal, Dec. 9, 2014; Decision on Rehearing, Jan. 4, 2016." My sources are consistent with 2016-01-04 for the rehearing decision (the Federal Circuit cites it as Rehearing Decision, 2015 WL 5676869 — a Westlaw year differing from the mailing year; treat the 2016-01-04 mailing date as the operative event date).
• The earlier summary's CAFC docket list (12-1105, 12-1506, 12-1600, 12-1606, 13-1129, 13-1146, 14-1335, 14-1368, 15-1029, 15-1857, 15-2088; Supreme Court 15-777; Del. D. Ct. 1:11-cv-00611) is litigation data from the patent's worldwide family — not PTAB trials. The only Federal Circuit appeal from a PTAB decision on this patent is No. 2016-1402.

No fabrication notice: I identified zero AIA trial proceeding numbers for this patent and have invented none. If the USPTO ODP ingest later surfaces a petition, the "zero AIA trials" premise of this memo would need revisiting — but as of the most recent ingest plus my searches, the correct answer is that the validity fight on US 7,844,915 was fought — and lost by the patent owner — entirely outside the AIA trial regime.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7,844,915, focusing on USPTO Assignment Center records and the Apple ownership chain.

Let me try to pin down the specific reel/frame for the Apple assignment and check for any post-issuance transfers.

Let me check whether the Cliff Island LLC assignment relates to this patent and confirm the Apple assignment reel/frame.

Ownership Chain Analysis — US 7,844,915 B2

Source caveat up front (read first): I was unable to reach the live USPTO Assignment Center query interface (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) with a patent-number filter during this session — the searches returned Google Patents legal-event data, Espacenet family data, and litigation exhibits, but not a rendered reel/frame table for the '915 patent. The reconstruction below is therefore built from Google Patents legal events, the Apple v. Samsung docket exhibits, and the reexamination file wrapper. Where I could not verify a reel/frame, I say so explicitly rather than supplying a plausible-looking number. Verify every entry against Assignment Center before relying on it.

Two things I did verify, which drive the whole analysis:

1. Google Patents legal events for US 7,844,915 list exactly one assignment: 2007-04-05 — Assigned to APPLE INC. (assignors PLATZER, ANDREW; HERZ, SCOTT), conveyance "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST."
2. No post-issuance assignment appears anywhere in the record. The reexamination of 2012–2019 proceeded as "Ex parte APPLE, INC., Patent Owner" — i.e., Apple still held the patent throughout.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check — NOT PRESENT. The classic fire-sale tell (inventors departing the original assignee within ~12 months of filing) does not appear here. Both inventors were Apple employees who continued prosecuting derivative applications on Apple's behalf for years after the Jan. 7, 2007 filing; continuation patents issued in their names as late as 2020. There is no evidence either inventor assigned personally to a third party or left to form an assertion vehicle. Note also that the assignment to Apple was executed at/around filing (recorded only three months later, Apr. 5, 2007) — this is the ordinary employee-invention assignment pattern, not a conflict signal.

Original assignee

Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014 (per the assignment record's assignee address block in the Apple v. Samsung exhibit).

• Product embodying the claims: Yes — decisively. The asserted independent claims (1, 8, 15) recite the single-finger-scroll vs. two-finger-gesture (pinch-to-zoom) disambiguation, and the dependent rubberband claims recite the iOS overscroll bounce. Apple's iPhone (launched June 2007, five months after this filing) and iPad implement this runtime behavior; it is the core of the iOS touch-input model.
• Primary line of business: Consumer electronics / software platform (operating company).
• Current status: Operating. Apple Inc. is a publicly traded, ongoing concern (NASDAQ: AAPL). No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no acquisition. The reexamination (Control No. 90/012,332) was prosecuted by Apple as patent owner through 2019.

Assignment timeline

That is the entire chain. There is no second assignment, no security agreement, no license recordation, no change of name, no release, and no transfer to any LLC or aggregator appearing in any source I could reach for this patent number.

Correspondent recurrence check

• The recurring prosecution correspondent on this family is Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman LLP (Customer No. 45217), Apple's long-time outside patent firm — an operating-company drafting/recording firm, not an NPE recording agent.
• By the 2018–2019 reexamination phase, correspondence had moved to Dentons US LLP — Apple, San Diego, CA (attorney Michael J. Yigdall) — again an operating-company firm, appearing here on reexam papers, not an assignment.
• Neither correspondent appears on any NPE recording pattern. I found no repeat-player NPE attorney attached to the '915 record because there is no NPE assignment on the record to attach to.

Cross-reference I checked and excluded (important — do not miscite)

The Apple v. Samsung exhibit bundle contains an Apple → Cliff Island LLC assignment: Reel 027294/0526, executed 08/02/2011, recorded 11/29/2011, correspondent Gregory D. Len, Pepper Hamilton LLP, 125 High St., Boston, MA 02110. That recording covers 12 patents — all Mitsubishi-origin mobile-terminal patents (e.g., 6,208,879; 6,456,841; 6,332,024; 7,078,777; RE41,997; RE42,459) — routed onward to Digitude Innovations, an Altitude Capital–backed assertion entity, in the well-documented 2011 "privateering" episode (TechCrunch / Ars Technica / EFF coverage). US 7,844,915 is NOT among those 12 properties. The Cliff Island/Digitude chain must not be attributed to this patent. I flag it only because an analyst scanning the same docket file could easily misread that exhibit as applying here.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7844915
    2007 : Filed by Platzer and Herz
         : Assigned to Apple Inc
    2008 : Pre-grant publication
    2010 : Patent issued to Apple
    2011 : Apple asserts patent vs Samsung
         : Apple asserts patent vs HTC at ITC
    2012 : Samsung requests ex parte reexam
    2019 : Reexam prosecuted by Apple as owner

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: The record contains exactly one assignment — Platzer and Herz → Apple Inc., executed 2007-01-07 (Google Patents legal event recorded 2007-04-05) — and no subsequent transfer of any kind. Apple is a going concern that ships the iPhone/iPad, the products that embody the claimed single-point-scroll / multi-point-gesture disambiguation, and it asserted the patent in its own name against actual competitors (Samsung, N.D. Cal. 5:11-cv-01846, filed April 2011; HTC, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-797, filed July 2011). This is the paradigm of an operating company enforcing its own patent against competitors, not an NPE chain — there is no shell entity, no cascading transfer, no pre-suit flip, and no asserter of record.

Enforceability caveat (outside my assignment scope, but material): the '915 claims went through ex parte reexamination 90/012,332, where the Board affirmed anticipation/obviousness rejections and, on remand (Decision dated Mar. 27, 2018, with a request for rehearing filed May 29, 2018), sustained rejections against claims 1–21 over Hillis and Nomura+Rubine. Ownership is not in doubt; claim survival is — confirm the current claim status via the reexamination certificate in Patent Center before treating any claim as enforceable. (This is a claim-status issue, not an ownership-issue, and it does not change the "operating-company assertion" verdict.)

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (query by patent number 7844915; also indexed at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Retrieve the reel/frame for the 2007-04-05 Apple recording to fill the one gap in the table above.

I'll search for the specific patent's citation data and prior art references.

I found the cited references. Let me get the complete "References Cited" list and the reexamination prior art.

Let me retrieve the complete cited-references list, including foreign references, from the patent front page.

I hit my tool-call limit while verifying, so here is my analysis grounded in the sources I did retrieve, with explicit uncertainty flags where I could not fully confirm.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7,844,915 B2

Scope note / method

I searched for the references cited by and against US 7,844,915. Two distinct bodies of prior art exist for this patent and they are often conflated:

1. The "References Cited" printed on the patent's own face (Form PTO-892 / (56) list) — mostly applicant IDS citations. These are "of record" but were not the art the examiner used to reject the claims.
2. The prior art actually relied upon in ex parte reexamination 90/012,332 — this is the legally operative art, and it comes from the reexamination record, not from the patent's front page.

The front-page (56) list below is transcribed from the actual issued front page, submitted as an exhibit in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., N.D. Cal. 5:11-cv-01846 (Doc. 991-14, filed 05/31/2012): https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.[239768](/patent/239768)/gov.uscourts.cand.239768.991.14.pdf

Important limitation: the front-page scan I retrieved truncates the list at 7,346,850. There may be additional U.S. patents, foreign patent documents, and other publications below that entry that I did not capture. Treat the list as partial.

PART 1 — The Operative Prior Art (Reexamination 90/012,332)

This is the "most relevant" prior art in the legal sense, because it is what the USPTO and PTAB actually used to reject claims 1–21.

Sources:

• Reexam Advisory Action (Control 90/012,332): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[4178089/2810](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=4178089-2810)/apple-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/
• PTAB Decision on Rehearing, Appeal 2014-007899 (Jan. 4, 2016): https://www.finnegan.com/a/web/[58155/2016](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=58155-2016).01.04-90012332-ExParteApple-Reexam-Decision.pdf
• Patent Owner Response / Final Office Action exhibits: https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.239768/gov.uscourts.cand.239768.2614.1.pdf, .../3145.1.pdf

Key details on the two primary references

Hillis (US 7,724,242) — The examiner relied on:

• col. 8, lines 44–48 and col. 3, lines 42–46 — drawing a finger across the display surface (scroll) vs. placing fingertips and moving them in an outwardly separating manner (gesture/scale).
• col. 7, lines 46–65 — "gesture dictionary 126A" / "mapping 126c" pattern-matching to identify actions.

The §102(e) rejection applied to claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19–21. The patent owner contested this on the grounds that (i) Hillis is a projected image on a touch surface, not a "touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device"; (ii) Hillis's "gesture dictionary" does not disclose using input-point count as the distinguishing criterion; and (iii) Hillis lacks an "event object." These arguments were rejected.

Nomura (JP 2000-163031 A) — Relied on for paragraph [0053]/[0055]–[0056]: "moving one finger" → scroll; "two fingers moving apart" / "two fingers moving toward each other" → gesture (zoom). This reference is central because it discloses the exact single-vs-two-point discrimination that underpins independent claims 1, 8, and 15.

Claim-construction nuance that mattered: the examiner applied the broadest reasonable interpretation and held that "two or more input points" means the alternatives "two" and "more than two," so art disclosing only the one-vs-two distinction still meets the limitation (Schumer; Brown v. 3M). The Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit later affirmed that construction but reversed/vacated on "rubberbanding" — the one point where the patent owner prevailed. (Consistent with the previously generated section; no contradiction.)

PART 2 — Front-Page "References Cited" U.S. Patents (of record)

These are the U.S. patent documents printed on the '915 face. Dates are as printed. Because the '915 patent was filed Jan. 7, 2007 with no earlier priority, pre-AIA §102 governs and the §102(b) critical date is Jan. 7, 2006.

Caveat on titles/descriptions: I was able to verify the numbers and dates from the issued front page, but I could not verify the titles or subject matter of most of these references within my tool budget. The subject-matter column above is my best recollection and should be independently confirmed before being relied on. Two entries (6,677,965 and 6,958,749) carry the asterisk used on the front page to denote a "referenced by examiner / other consideration."

Critical analytical point: none of these sixteen front-page U.S. patents appears to have been the basis of the actual §102 rejection. They are cited-of-record, not the anticipating art. The examiner's §102 rejection ran through Hillis, not through any of these.

PART 3 — Foreign Patent Documents & Other Publications

Not fully captured. The front-page (56) list from the exhibit I retrieved was truncated before the "Foreign Patent Documents" and "Other Publications" sections. I therefore cannot give you a complete foreign-reference list. What I can confirm from the reexamination record is the operative foreign reference: JP 2000-163031 A (Nomura). There are also references to US 2008/0168478 A1 appearing in related family citation lists, but I could not confirm it appears on the '915 face — do not treat that as confirmed.

PART 4 — §102 Anticipation Mapping (summary)

The one claim family the Federal Circuit protected from the reexam's broad reading was rubberbanding (claims 2, 9, 16 and their counterparts in the continuations), on the ground that the specification defines the term. Everything else stood rejected.

PART 5 — Caveats, Confidence, and a Flagged Discrepancy

1. Contradiction check vs. the previously generated section: none material. That section correctly identified Hillis, Nomura, and Rubine as the reexam art and correctly described the Federal Circuit's split outcome. My search confirmed rather than contradicted it.
2. Missing content: I did not obtain the complete front-page reference list. The foreign-patent-documents section and the "Other Publications" (non-patent literature) section are missing, and the U.S. list may extend past 7,346,850. If completeness matters, the authoritative source is the issued patent PDF at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/... (US 7,844,915) or the USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier entry.
3. Unverified identities: the "Lira" reference, the exact Rubine reference (article vs. US 5,590,219), and most of the front-page patent titles are not verified. I have not fabricated them as facts — they are flagged as uncertain.
4. No 2026 activity for this patent was found in my searches (consistent with the prior section's caveat).
5. Enforceability remains uncertain — the claims were rejected and the appeal was only partly successful; a reexamination certificate check is still required before treating any claim as live.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the actual prior art of record. Let me verify the reexamination references and related art.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Prepared: April 26, 2026 · Patent: U.S. 7,844,915 B2, "Application programming interfaces for scrolling operations" (Platzer & Herz; filed/priority Jan. 7, 2007; issued Nov. 30, 2010; assignee Apple Inc.)

Cross-reference note (no contradiction found): This analysis builds on the earlier sections and confirms two points those sections flagged as unverified: (1) the Federal Circuit decision is In re Apple, Inc., 685 F. App'x 907 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which affirmed the Board's holding that claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–21 are unpatentable and left claims 2, 9, and 16 (the rubberband claims) for remand; and (2) the Board's Decision on Remand dated March 27, 2018 then sustained the rejections of claims 1–21. One refinement to the earlier "Litigation summary": a separate USPTO paper in the record (Control No. 90/012,304, Patent 7,469,381) confirms/cancels that patent's claims (confirmed 14 and 17–19; canceled 1–13, 15–16, 20). That is a different patent — do not attribute it to '915.

0. The prior art of record (the universe I analyze)

The obviousness grounds below are drawn from the prior art cited in the order granting ex parte reexamination (Control No. 90/012,332, Art Unit 3992, order mailed Aug. 17, 2012), as reflected in the Office actions and the PTAB/Federal Circuit decisions:

Source: Office action / order in Control 90/012,332 (Apple v. Samsung docket exhibit #2202) and the PTAB Decision on Rehearing (Appeal 2014-007899).

The Google Patents "Prior art keywords" for the '915 patent — scroll, user input, gesture, call, display — map directly onto the limitations in dispute (scroll vs. gesture determination; the "call" issued; the display).

1. Legal framework

Obviousness under § 103 asks whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention, considering (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).

Several points control here:

• The motivation need not be in the references. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–21 (2007) (a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions"; "design incentives and other market forces"; "any need or problem known in the field… can provide a reason"). The TSM test is one example of a valid rationale, not the exclusive test.
• Predictable combination of known elements. Where a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform," the combination is obvious. Id. at 417.
• Teaching away requires that the reference "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" the claimed solution — mere preference for a different approach, or an art taught for a different purpose, is not enough. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
• Analogous art: references are analogous if from the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem.

I apply all of this to each claim group below.

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

The '915 patent's field is the touch/GUI input handling and event-dispatching layer of a device operating system (spec., "Computer Program Listing," and Detailed Description ¶¶ on "graphics framework," "window server," and "event object"). A POSITA at the Jan. 7, 2007 priority date would have:

• A bachelor's degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or equivalent), plus ~2–4 years' experience in GUI/touch-input software; or a master's degree plus ~1–2 years;
• Working familiarity with event-driven user-interface toolkits and event-object/event-dispatch architectures;
• Working familiarity with multi-touch / multi-point gesture recognition (the tabletop and pen-gesture literature, including Rubine's gesture recognizer and the Wu et al. multi-point literature cited on the face of the Hillis family);
• Familiarity with touch-sensitive displays and direct-manipulation panning/zooming.

This is the level the examiner and the Board applied, and it is the correct level for the analysis below.

3. The limitation that decides the case: "distinguishing between one input point … and two or more input points"

Each independent claim (1, 8, 15) contains this element:

"determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation…"

Construction. Claim terms carry their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in reexamination. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Board held that "two or more" means two or more — i.e., prior art that distinguishes one point (scroll) from two points (gesture) meets the limitation, because "or" creates alternatives. Apple argued the clause required a "dichotomous" 1-vs-anything-greater-than-1 algorithm (an "atomic unit" theory). The Board rejected this (Decision on Rehearing, at 2–3), and the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board on this point (In re Apple, 685 F. App'x 907). This construction is the hinge on which the obviousness of the independent claims turns.

4. What each reference teaches (element-level)

4.1 Nomura (JP 2000-163031 A) — the primary reference

An E-book / portable information device with a touch panel controller 1040, touch panel 1060, and display 1070 (Ex. J-6 mapping, citing Nomura Fig. 31) that recognizes "action histories of fingers in contact with the display" to input "at least one of rotation, zooming-in, zooming-out and scrolling manipulations." Specifically:

• One finger = scroll. Per PTAB: "Nomura's disclosure in paragraphs 55 and 56 includes interpreting the event as a scroll with the movement of one finger and interpreting the event as a gesture operation with the movement of two fingers."
• Two fingers = zoom gesture. "A zooming-in instruction and the amount of zooming-in for map images may be input by an action of widening the gap between two fingers. A zooming-out instruction … by an action of narrowing the gap between two fingers." (Nomura p.1, quoted in Exhibit J-6.)
• Rotation gesture (claim 6 group): "A rotation instruction … may be input by an action of rotating one finger around an axis of another finger."
• Drag-for-a-certain-time (claims 5/12/19): "because the final amount of zooming-in is determined at the time the movements of fingers are stopped…". Nomura thus discloses "determining … based on receiving a drag user input for a certain time period."
• Device-type recitations (claims 7/14/21): Nomura is a "portable information device," "may have a pocketbook size … so that it may be conveniently carried," i.e., a portable/handheld data-processing device.

Nomura supplies: touch-sensitive display; user input with one or more contact points; scroll-vs-gesture determination keyed to input-point count; scroll response; and scaling/zoom response to multi-point input.

4.2 Rubine (CMU-CS-91-202) — the architecture/event-object reference

Rubine's dissertation and the GRANDMA toolkit disclose the event-object, event-dispatch model of a user-interface toolkit that lets an application receive and interpret gestures as structured input events, including gesture "start/change/end"-type flow, and treats scroll bars as a "standard interaction technique." It provides the "creating an event object" and "issuing a … call" software architecture that the '915 specification describes (multi-touch driver → window server → view; "handle gesture event call"; "gesture change call"). Rubine does not, standing alone, disclose a touch-sensitive display — that is exactly what Nomura supplies, which is why the examiner paired them.

4.3 Hillis (U.S. 7,724,242) — the co-primary multi-touch reference

A touch-sensitive interactive display (table 122, projector 128, computer 126) that:

• Stores a position history per contact region, computes velocity and (optionally) force;
• Detects gestures as "Tracking-One" and "Tracking-Two" states, i.e., it "tracks a predetermined number of distinct contact locations (such as two)" and, upon detecting a second contact, enters a two-contact state;
• Uses a gesture dictionary 126a / mapping 126c to associate an identified gesture with a display control command (pan, zoom, rotate), and "initiates performance of the identified action";
• Discloses panning by a finger drawn across the display with inertia after lift-off (scroll with a stopping behavior); and
• Associates an outward separating two-fingertip gesture with zoom-in.

Hillis is used as antecedent art under § 102(e) for claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19–21, and as a § 103 base when combined with Lira/Makus.

4.4 Lira (WO 03/081458) — the rubberbanding reference

Lira teaches that, on lift-off of the pen, a logical column "snap[s] into alignment with the display window," and that if the user's scrolling exceeds a user-defined snap threshold, "the display is snapped to the adjacent or repositioned column," and that "the snap-on-column feature can also be animated to provide an appearance of movement." The examiner read this as teaching "rubberbanding a column of the page," i.e., a scrolling region that snaps back/over by a predetermined maximum displacement when it exceeds a window edge based on the scroll. (Office action 90/012,332, ¶16.)

4.5 Makus (U.S. 6,757,673)

Cited for the scroll-indicator aspects of dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 (attaching a scroll indicator to a content edge or window edge).

4.6 Hill ('524) and Ullmann ('965)

Cited in the order but deemed by the examiner "essentially cumulative" — useful only as corroboration that scroll indicators and event handling were well known.

5. Ground-by-ground obviousness

GROUND A — Nomura + Rubine renders claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19–21 obvious

Rationale for combining. Both references are in the same field of endeavor (touch/gesture-based input for computing devices), and the combination addresses a recognized problem: how to take a device that detects and interprets multi-point touch actions as gestures and scrolling (Nomura) and implement it in a software architecture that creates event objects and dispatches gesture/scroll calls to an application (Rubine). Nomura itself emphasizes that "hardware such as buttons on the case or a keyboard does not need" to be used — a design incentive to route all input through the touch/gesture software layer, which is precisely the motivation to adopt a toolkit event model like Rubine's. A POSITA seeking to build Nomura's E-book functionality as a reusable, application-facing interface would predictably consult the standard gesture/event-toolkit art.

Element mapping:

Dependent claims:

• 5 / 12 / 19 (drag for a certain time period): Nomura — "the final amount of zooming-in is determined at the time the movements of fingers are stopped."
• 6 / 13 / 20 (rotate the view in response to multi-point gesture): Nomura — rotation "by an action of rotating one finger around an axis of another finger."
• 7 / 14 / 21 (portable / multi-touch / wireless / cell phone): Nomura's "portable information device"; Hillis supplies multi-touch/wireless device context if needed.

Result: Obvious under § 103; on the Board's BRI of "two or more," Nomura alone discloses the "distinguishing" step (it distinguishes one from two), and Rubine supplies the event-object/call architecture.

GROUND B — Hillis anticipated claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19–21 (§ 102(e))

For completeness, the examiner found Hillis anticipates that set (Ground 1). Where anticipation is found, the § 103 inquiry is subsumed (In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792 (CCPA 1982)) — a disclosed, single-reference anticipation cannot be non-obvious. Hillis's Tracking-One/Tracking-Two states and gesture-dictionary mapping supply the "distinguishing" and "issuing call" elements, and its pan-with-inertia and zoom supply the response elements. The Board sustained this, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.

GROUND C — Hillis + Lira and Nomura + Rubine + Lira render rubberband claims 2, 9, 16 obvious

Claim 2 (representative): "rubberbanding a scrolling region displayed within the window by a predetermined maximum displacement when the scrolling region exceeds a window edge based on the scroll" ('915 patent, col. 23, lines 42–46).

• Why obvious: Both primary references teach touch-driven scrolling with recognizable edge/terminus behavior (Hillis's pan-with-inertia; Nomura's scroll). Lira teaches snapping a scrolling column back/over by a threshold ("a predetermined maximum displacement") when the scroll exceeds an edge, and optionally animating the snap. A POSITA adding a "you've hit the end — bounce/snap" affordance to a touch scroller would predictably incorporate Lira's threshold-snap technique; the references are in the same field (touch/pen scrolling) and the problem — signaling/limiting overscroll at a boundary — is the same problem Lira addresses. Under KSR, combining a known edge-snapping behavior with a known touch scroller is a predictable arrangement of old elements each performing its known function.
• Apple's counter (rejected): that Lira's "recentering" is "incompatible" with Nomura/Hillis scrolling, and that Lira's snap is about column edges, not the page/content edge. The examiner held — and the Board agreed — that "the region outside the content" is not a claim limitation; Lira's threshold snap, occurring "based on the scroll," meets the claim; and the alleged incompatibility is not borne out because Lira discloses plain scrolling with a snap and the references are combinable. The Board further noted Lira's animation disclosure.

GROUND D — Hillis + Makus and Nomura + Rubine + Makus render indicator claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18 obvious

Claim 3/4 (representative): "attaching scroll indicators to a content edge of the window" / "to the window edge." Makus supplies edge-attached scroll indicators. The motivation: scroll indicators (scrollbars) were "ubiquitous" — the record itself cites Rubine at p. 41 calling scroll bars a "standard interaction technique." Placing a known, standard scroll-indicator on the content/window edge of a touch scroller is a simple substitution of a known element to achieve a known result, which KSR treats as obvious. This is reinforced by the '915 spec.'s own admission that scroll indicators are display upon mouse/finger-down and fade out on lift — i.e., conventional.

GROUND E — Alternate/stacked ground to guard against any single-reference gap

Even if one rejects the strict "two-or-more" reading, the combination Nomura + Rubine + Hillis independently meets every independent-claim element: Nomura for touch I/O and 1-vs-2-point scroll/zoom/rotate behavior; Rubine for the event-object/call architecture; and Hillis to the extent a given claim needs explicit multi-contact tracking (Tracking-Two), gesture dictionary/mapping, or inertia-terminated scrolling. A POSITA would combine these because they all concern recognizing and acting on touch gestures on a display, and each contributes its known function to the same end. The stacking preserves obviousness even if any one reference is discounted — the hallmark of a robust § 103 position.

6. The motivation-to-combine rationales, consolidated

1. Common problem, common field. All primary references address interpreting multi-contact touch/pen input on a display to perform scrolling and gesturing. Nomura and Hillis are squarely in touch-display panning/zooming; Rubine and Makus are in touch/GUI input techniques. → same field of endeavor.
2. Known, finite solution space. By Jan. 2007 the art had converged on distinguishing number of contact points to separate "scroll/pan" from "gesture/zoom/rotate." Nomura (one finger vs. two) and Hillis (Tracking-One vs. Tracking-Two) are two such implementations. KSR: a finite number of predictable solutions.
3. Design incentive / market forces. Demand for direct-manipulation portable devices (Nomura's pocketable E-book; Hillis's touch table; the iPhone-era context) made it desirable to (a) let one finger scroll and two fingers zoom/rotate, and (b) expose that behavior through an application-facing API rather than hard-coding it — the exact motivation to adopt a toolkit/event-object architecture (Rubine).
4. Simple substitution / predictable arrangement. Adding Lira's threshold snap to a touch scroller, or Makus's scroll indicators to a scroll region edge, is substituting a known element performing its known function — KSR at 417.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. No new physical principle is required; the combination is software-level integration of known input-recognition and event-dispatch techniques, all within POSITA capability.

7. Rebutting the patent owner's non-obviousness arguments

Apple's principal arguments in the reexam (and their dispositions):

8. Claim-by-claim conclusion

9. Real-world confirmation and remaining caveats

• The examiner rejected all 21 claims; the PTAB Decision on Appeal (Dec. 9, 2014) affirmed; rehearing denied (Jan. 4, 2016); the Federal Circuit in In re Apple, 685 F. App'x 907 (2017), affirmed the unpatentability of claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, 17–21 and remanded claims 2, 9, 16; and the Board's Decision on Remand (Mar. 27, 2018) sustained the rejections of all claims 1–21. This is strong, authoritative validation of the § 103 analysis above.
• Caveat (unchanged from the earlier sections): confirm the ex parte reexamination certificate for 90/012,332 in Patent Center before treating any '915 claim as enforceable. Do not confuse the certificate for Control No. 90/012,304 (Patent 7,469,381) — a different patent — with the '915 proceeding.
• Scope caveat: this is an obviousness assessment of the challenged claims against the prior art of record in the reexamination. It is not a freedom-to-operate or validity opinion, and it does not evaluate art outside that record.