EXHIBIT 13

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 12
NEONODE0000490

Attorney's Docket No.: NEONODE. P004 PATENT 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

In Re Patent Application of: 

Magnus Goertz 

Application No: 10/315,250 

Filed: 

For: 

December 10, 2002 

USER INTERFACE FOR 

MOBILE HANDHELD 

COMPUTER UNIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

~~~~~~~~~~~) 

Mail Stop AMENDMENT 

Commissioner for Patents 

P. 0. Box 1450 

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 

Examiner: Ryan F. Pitaro 

Art Unit: 2174 

AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION 

UNDER 37 C.F.R. §1.111 

Sir: 

In response to the Office Action dated November 24, 

2009, applicant respectfully requests that the remarks below be taken 

into consideration. 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -1-

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 12
NEONODE0000491

IN THE CLAIMS: 

Please substitute the following claims for the pending 

claims with the same number: 

1. (currently amended) A computer readable medium storing a 

computer program with computer program code, which, when read by a 

mobile handheld computer unit, allows the computer to present a user 

interface for the mobile handheld computer unit, the user interface 

comprising: 

a touch sensitive area in which representations of at 

least one function are displayed, and each function of said at least one 

function being mapped to a corresponding location in the touch sensitive 

area at which the representation of the function is displayed, and being 

activated by a multi-step operation comprising Ci) an object touching the 

corresponding location and then (ii) the object gliding along the touch 

sensitive area away from the touched location. 

2. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 1, 

wherein one function from the at least one function, when activated, 

causes the user interface to display icons representing different services 

or settings for a currently active application. 

3. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 2, 

wherein the user interface is characterised in, that a selection of a 

preferred service or setting is done by tapping on a display icon 

corresponding to the preferred service or setting. 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -2-

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 3 of 12
NEONODE0000492

4. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 1, 

wherein one function from at least one function, when activated, causes 

the user interface to display a keyboard and a text field. 

5. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 4, 

wherein said text field is used for inputting and editing of text through 

said keyboard. 

6. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 1, 

wherein one function from the at least one function, when activated, 

causes the user interface to display a list with a library of available 

applications and files on the mobile handheld computer unit. 

7. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 6, 

wherein the user interface is characterised in, that a selection of an 

application or file is done by gliding the object along said touch sensitive 

area so that a representation of a desired one of said application or file is 

highlighted, raising said object from said touch sensitive area, and then 

tapping on said touch sensitive area. 

8. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 7, 

wherein the user interface is characterised in, that at any given time said 

list presents only files or only applications, and that an area of said list 

presents a field through which said list can be changed from presenting 

files to presenting applications, or from presenting applications to 

presenting files. 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -3-

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 4 of 12
NEONODE0000493

9. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 7, 

wherein the user interface is characterised in, that, one item in said list is 

highlighted by a moveable marking, and the user interface enables list 

navigation whereby gliding the object along the touch sensitive area in a 

direction towards the top of said list or towards the bottom of said list 

causes said marking to move in the same direction without scrolling the 

list. 

10. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 9, 

wherein the user interface is characterised in, that, if the number of 

applications or files in said list exceeds the number of applications or files 

that can be presented on said touch sensitive area as content, and if the 

object is (i) glided along said touch sensitive area to the top or bottom of 

said touch sensitive area, then (ii) raised above said touch sensitive area, 

then (iii) replaced on said touch sensitive area, and then (iv) again glided 

along said touch sensitive area to the top or bottom of said touch 

sensitive area, said list navigation pages the content of said list up or 

down by one whole page. 

11. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 

10, wherein the user interface is characterised in, that if the object is 

raised from any first position on said touch sensitive area and then 

replaced on any second position on said touch sensitive area, said list 

navigation can be continued from said second position. 

12. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 1, 

wherein the user interface is characterised in, that an active application, 

function, service or setting is advanced one step by gliding the object 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -4-

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 5 of 12
NEONODE0000494

along the touch sensitive area from left to right, and that the active 

application, function, service or setting is closed or backed one step by 

gliding the object along the touch sensitive area from right to left. 

13. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 1, 

wherein the user interface is characterised in, that said representations of 

said at least one function are located at the bottom of said touch sensitive 

area. 

14. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 1, 

wherein the touch sensitive area is 2-3 inches in diagonal dimension. 

15. (previously presented) An enclosure adapted to cover the mobile 

handheld computer unit according to Claim 1, characterised in, that said 

enclosure is provided with an opening for said touch sensitive area. 

16. (previously presented) The enclosure according to Claim 15, 

characterised in, that said enclosure is removable and exchangeable. 

17. (cancelled) 

18. (previously presented) The computer readable medium of claim 1, 

characterised in, that said computer program code is adapted to function 

as a shell upon an operating system. 

19. - 47. (cancelled) 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -5-

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 6 of 12
NEONODE0000495

REMARKS 

Applicant expresses appreciation to the Examiner for 

the courtesy of an interview granted to applicant's representative Marc A. 

Berger (Reg. No. 44,029) and to Yossi Shain. The interview was held by 

telephone on Monday, February 22, 2010. The substance of the interview 

concerned the amendments to claim 1. 

Applicant has carefully studied the outstanding Office 

Action. The present amendment is intended to place the application in 

condition for allowance and is believed to overcome all of the objections 

and rejections made by the Examiner. Favorable reconsideration and 

allowance of the application are respectfully requested. 

Applicant has amended claim 1 to properly claim the 

present invention. No new matter has been introduced. Claims 1 - 16 

and 18 are presented for examination. 

In Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Office Action, the 

Examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being 

unpatentable over Nakajima et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,346,935 

(''Nakajima") in view of Hoshino et al., U.S. Publ. No. 2004/0021643 

(''Hoshino"). 

In Paragraph 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner has 

rejected claims 2 - 11, 14 - 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as 

being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Hoshino, and in view of 

Rogue, Palm Pilot: The Ultimate Guide, 2nd Edition ("Rogue"). 

In Paragraph 5 of the Office Action, the Examiner has 

rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being 

unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Rogue, in view of Hoshino, and in 

view of O'Rourke, US Patent No. 7,225,408 ("O'Rourke"). 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -6-

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 7 of 12
NEONODE0000496

Brief Discussion of Prior Art 

Nakajima, Rogue and O'Rourke are discussed in 

applicant's response filed on July 13, 2009. 

Hoshino describes a touch screen user interface with 

two distinct user operations; namely, (1) touch, and (2) drag. Since a 

drag operation begins with an initial touch, in order to distinguish 

between these operations (1) and (2), it is necessary to discriminate 

between a touch operation and the initial touch of a drag operation. To 

do so, Hoshino uses a pressure sensor, in addition to a touch sensor. The 

pressure sensor discriminates between three states; namely, (a) no 

touch, (b) a light touch, and (c) a hard touch, corresponding to respective 

pressure levels 0, Pl and P2 (Hoshino/ pars. 10, 57, 79 - 81, 91 and 92; 

step 103 of FIG. 7, step 205 of FIG. 12, step 305 of FIG. 15, step 406 of 

FIG. 18 and step 506 of FIG. 21). 

Hoshino associates a drag operation with a soft initial 

touch, and associates a touch operation with a hard touch. Hoshino is 

thereby able to discriminate between a touch operation and the initial 

touch of a drag operation. Hoshino activates a function in response to a 

hard touch, but does not activate a function in response to a soft touch. 

Response to Examiner's Arguments 

In rejecting independent claim 1 in Paragraph 3 of the 

Office Action, the Examiner has cited pars. 92 and 93 of Hoshino as 

teaching a function being activated in response to an object touching a 

corresponding location and then gliding along the touch sensitive area 

away from the location. Applicant respectfully submits that, unlike the 

claimed invention, Hoshino activates the function solely in response to a 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -7-

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 8 of 12
NEONODE0000497

push-in operation; i.e., a hard touch, and not in response to a drag 

operation. Indeed, at par. 92 Hoshino recites 

When P > = P2, an operation for activating the function may be 

performed in a manner similar to steps 104 - 107 in FIG. 7. 

Applicant notes that in FIG. 7, from step 100 (START) through step 107, 

function activation occurs solely in response to a hard touch on an 

associated icon, irrespective of whether or not a drag is performed. 

In distinction, the claimed invention activates a function 

in response to a multi-step touch-and-glide operation. Thus in particular, 

referring to the illustration below, the claimed invention responds to a 

(hard) touch followed by a glide differently than Hoshino. Specifically, 

the claimed invention activates a function after the glide, whereas 

Hoshino activates the function after the (hard) touch. 

1~)~~~~~~~t~:;~~~Jj Function activation operation of claimed invention vs. that of Hoshino 

The table below summarizes some of the salient 

distinctions between the claimed invention and Hoshino. 

Some distinctions between claimed invention and Hoshino 

Claimed invention Hoshino 

Objective Novel touch-and- Discriminate between two 

glide user interface conventional operations; 

operation namely, (1) touch, and 

(2) drag-and-drop 

Hardware Touch screen Touch screen with 

pressure sensor 

Function Activation In response to both In response to hard touch 

steps of a multi-step 

operation; namely, 

(1) touch, followed 

by (2) a glide 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -8-

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 9 of 12
NEONODE0000498

In order to further distinguish the claimed invention 

over the prior art, applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitation 

of a multi-step operation comprising (1) a touch, followed by (2) a glide 

away from the touched position. 

The rejections of the claims 1 - 16 and 18 in 

paragraphs 2 - 5 of the Office Action will now be dealt with specifically. 

As to amended independent claim 1 for a computer 

readable medium, applicant respectfully submits, as indicated 

hereinabove, that the limitation in claim 1 of 

"each function ... being activated by a multi-step 

operation comprising (i) an object touching the corresponding location 

and then (ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from 

the touched location" 

is neither shown nor suggested in Nakajima, Hoshino, Rogue or O'Rourke. 

In Paragraph 3 of the Office Action, the Examiner has 

indicated that it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of 

Hoshino with the medium of Nakajima. Applicant respectfully disagrees. 

Hoshino does not teach gliding a finger away from an icon. Instead, 

Hoshino teaches a drag-and-drop operation for moving an icon. In 

Nakajima the icons are either carve-outs in a frame surrounding a touch 

pad, or icons on an overlay of the touch pad. It is not possible to move 

the icons of Nakajima. As such, even the combination of Hoshino and 

Nakajima does not suggest the touch-and-glide operation of the claimed 

invention. 

Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if one were 

somehow able to introduce the drag operation of Hoshino into Nakajima, 

the lack of a pressure sensor in Nakajima would cause Nakajima to 

activate a function upon the initial touch of the drag, and ignore the drag 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -9-

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 10 of 12
NEONODE0000499

altogether. In fact Hoshino, at pars. 7 - 9, teaches away from trying to 

support a drag-and-drop operation on a touch screen that does not have 

a pressure sensor. 

The table below summarizes reasons why it is nonobvious to combine Nakajima and Hoshino. 

Some reasons why it is non-obvious to combine Nakajima with Hoshino 

Nakajima Hoshino 

Touch sensitive surface is opaque Requires dynamic video display to 

and static animate drag-and-drop of icons 

Icon is stationary (carve-out in Requires software generated icon 

frame surrounding screen, or on 

overlay sheet) 

Touch screen does not have Requires pressure sensor. 

pressure sensor 

Because claims 2 - 16 and 18 depend from claim 1 and 

include additional features, applicant respectfully submits that claims 2 -

16 and 18 are not anticipated or rendered obvious by Nakajima, Hoshino, 

Rogue, O'Rourke, or a combination of Nakajima, Hoshino, Rogue and 

O'Rourke. 

Accordingly claims 1 - 16 and 18 are deemed to be 

allowable. 

Support for Amended Claims in Original Specification 

Independent claim 1 for a computer readable medium 

has been amended to include the limitation of a multi-step operation 

comprising (1) a touch, followed by (2) a glide. This limitation is 

supported in the original specification at least by the Abstract, by FIG. 2, 

where the arrow at A indicates a touch and the arrow at B indicates a 

glide, and by the description thereof at par. 47. 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -10-

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 11 of 12
NEONODE0000500

For the foregoing reasons, applicant respectfully 

submits that the applicable objections and rejections have been overcome 

and that the claims are in condition for allowance. 

If any matters can be resolved by telephone, applicant 

requests that the Patent and Trademark Office please contact the 

applicant at the telephone number listed below. 

Dated: February 22, 2010 

P.O. Box 691 

Soquel, CA 95073 

(831) 426-8200 

Atty. Docket No. NEONODE.P004 -11-

Respectfully submitted, 

/Marc A. Beraer/ 

Marc A. Berger 

Reg. No. 44,029 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 71-30 Filed 04/14/23 Page 12 of 12