IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Request for Ex Parte Reexamination USS. Patent No. 7,844,915 REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION Issued: November 30, 2010 For: APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACES FOR SCROLLING OPERATIONS Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam Commissionner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 Sir: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. $§ 302-307 and C.F.R. § 1.510, the undersigned hereby requests ex parte reexamination of Claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 (“the *915 Patent,” submitted as Exhibit 1) titled “Application Programming Interfaces for Scrolling Operations.” Apple Inc. is the assignee named on the face of the ‘915 Patent. The application for the ‘915 Patent was filed on January 7, 2007. The ‘915 Patent does not claim priority from any earlier applications.US. Patent No. 7,844,915 Issued: November 30, 2010 1. INTRODUCTION..... I. DESCRIPTION OF THE ‘915 PATENT AND THE CLAIMS FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED 9 A. The Specification... B. The Claims... The Independent Claims BEE 2. The Dependent Claims. 15, C. Prosecution History... 17 Il STATEMENT OF THE LAW... IV. PROPOSED REJECTIONS. 22 V. STATEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY 24 VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PERTINENCE AND MANNER OF APPLYING THE PRIOR ART TO THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘915 PATENT ... 30 A. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Hillis 30 1. Claims 1, 8, and 15 should be rejected as anticipated by Hillis..coe0uu31 2. Claims 3, 10, and 17 should be rejected as anticipated by Hillis AA 3. Claims 4, 11, and 18 should be rejected as anticipated by Hillis....0045 4. Claims 5, 12, and 19 should be rejected as anticipated by Hillis 5. Claims 6, 13, and 20 should be rejected as anticipated by Hillis AB 6. Claims 7, 14, and 21 should be rejected as anticipated by Hillis 49 B. Claims 2, 9, and 16 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious by Hillis in view of Lira... 1. Claims 2, 9, and 16 should be rejected as rendered obvious by Hillis in view of Lis 53US. Patent No. 7,844,915 Issued: November 30, 2010 c Claims 2, 9, and 16 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious by Hillis in view of Ullmann. ....o. 56 1. Claims 2, 9, and 16 should be rejected as rendered obvious by Hillis in. view of Ullmann ..scsosee 58 Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious by Hillis in view of Makus 1. Claims 3, 10, and 17 should be rejected as rendered obvious by Hillis in view of Makus. 63 Claims 4, 11, and 18 should be rejected as rendered obvious by Hillis in view of Makus... Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 should be as rendered obvious by Hill 67 1 Claims 1, 8 and 15 should be rejected as rendered obvious by Hill 69 2. Claims 3, 10, and 17 should be rejected as rendered obvious by Hill... 3. Claims 4, 11, and 18 should be rejected as rendered obvious by Hil eo 80 4, Claims 5, 12, and 19 should be Hill oc ssscssse BL 5. Claims 6, 13, and 20 should be rejected as rendered obvious Hill ..... 6 Claims 7, 14, and 21 should be rejected as rendered obvious by Hill 82 Claims 2, 9, and 16 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious by Hill in view of Lira ..... 1. Claims 2, 9, and 16 should be rejected as rendered obvious by Hill in view of Lira 87 Claims 2, 9, and 16 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C, § 103 as rendered obvious by Hill in view of Ullmann ..... 1. Claims 2, 9, and 16 should be rejected as rendered obvious by Hill in view of Ullmann 92 Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious by Hill in view of Makus...