Ex Parte C. Anderson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 2012

11174130 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/174,130 06/30/2005 Eric C. Anderson I334/US 1043 49278 7590 11/15/2012 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC 5400 Trinity Road Suite 303 Raleigh, NC 27607 EXAMINER MCCOMMAS, STUART S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2629 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte ERIC C. ANDERSON _____________ Appeal 2010-005307 Application 11/174,130 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DAVID M. KOHUT, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005307 Application 11/174,130 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-8, 10-29, and 31-40.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, computer readable medium, and device for controlling an application on a multifunction device based upon the device’s orientation. Spec. 2-3. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A multifunction device that can be held in a plurality of orientations, including a vertical orientation and a horizontal orientation, the multifunction device, comprising: a user interface including a display; a plurality of applications that provide the multifunction device with respective functions, the plurality of applications comprising at least two of organizer, communication, utility, and entertainment functions, wherein at least a portion of the application include different modes of operation; and control means for detecting a change in an orientation of the multifunction device and an orientation of the display and for automatically switching between the plurality of applications based on the detected orientation, and, in response to automatically switching between the applications, changing the behavior of the multifunction device such that content and orientation of the content on the display changes. REFERENCES Fisher US 5,969,705 Oct. 19, 1999 Hinckley US 2002/0021278 A1 Feb. 21, 2002 1 Claims 9 and 30 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2010-005307 Application 11/174,130 3 Janninck US 2003/0068988 A1 Apr. 10, 2003 Kisuki US 2004/0012558 A1 Jan. 22, 2004 Marvit2 US 2005/0212749 A1 Sep. 29, 2005 (filed Mar. 23, 2004) Marvit3 US 2005/0212758 A1 Sep. 29, 2005 (filed Mar. 23, 2004) Foster US 2005/0288001 A1 Dec. 29, 2005 (filed Aug. 25, 2004) Mathews US 2006/0176278 A1 Aug. 10, 2006 (filed Feb. 10, 2005) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, 22-24, 28, 31, 32, 35, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Janninck and Mathews. Ans. 3-8. Claims 4 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Janninck, Mathews, Marvit ‘758, and Kisuki. Ans. 8-10. Claims 5, 6, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Janninck, Mathews, and Marvit ‘749. Ans. 10-12. Claims 8, 13, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Janninck, Mathews, and Foster. Ans. 12-14. 2 Hereinafter referred to as Marvit ‘749. 3 Hereinafter referred to as Marvit ‘758. Appeal 2010-005307 Application 11/174,130 4 Claims 14-16, 34, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Janninck, Mathews, and Hinckley. Ans. 14-16. Claims 17-20 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Janninck, Mathews, Hinckley, and Foster. Ans. 16-18. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Janninck, Mathews, and Fisher. Ans. 18-19. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Janninck and Mathews teaches or suggests in response to automatically switching between applications, changing the behavior of the multifunction device such that content and orientation of the content on the display changes, as required by independent claims 1, 22, and 40? Did the Examiner err by improperly combining Janninck and Mathews? ANALYSIS Appellant selects claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-8, 10-29, and 31-40. App. Br. 18. Appellant argues that Mathews does not teach or suggest changing the content and orientation of the content on the display of the multifunction device as a result of automatically switching between applications, as required by claim 1, because Mathews does not teach changing the display as a result of switching between applications. App. Br. 16-17. Instead, Appellant contends that Mathews only teaches changing between a portrait or landscape mode depending on the orientation of the mobile device. App. Br. 17. We disagree. Appeal 2010-005307 Application 11/174,130 5 The Examiner finds that Mathews explicitly teaches that the device can be oriented in one direction while running a phonebook application and when the device is rotated to a different orientation the application and keys on the phone change to a camera mode (citing paragraph 25 of Mathews). Ans. 19. We agree with the Examiner’s finding and Appellant does not address the Examiner’s specific finding. Thus, we do not find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive. Appellant additionally argues that the combination of Janninck and Mathews is improper Janninck teaches away from the combination and the combination would not have provided predictable results. App. Br. 18-20. We disagree. First, Appellant’s argument that Janninck teaches away from the combination because Janninck’s display does not rotate while the orientation of the device would makes the combination incompatible because the display would not be presented appropriately (App. Br. 20) is not persuasive. The Examiner is not proposing rotating the display in Janninck as the upper extending portion is rotated. Instead, the Examiner finds that Janninck teaches that it was known to change to different applications based upon the multiple orientations of a device. Ans. 21. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Mathews teaches rotating the entire device to a different orientation and changing the display and application accordingly. Ans. 21. Thus, the Examiner finds that the combination of the references teaches rotating the device to multiple orientations and changing the application and orientation of the display based on the particular orientation. Ans. 21. We see no reason that the differences between these two references are sufficient to establish that such references “teach away” from any Appeal 2010-005307 Application 11/174,130 6 combination thereof. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the references teach away from the present invention. Lastly, Appellant’s argument that the combination would not have yielded predictable results (App. Br. 20) is also not persuasive. Appellant argues that the change in orientation without a change in the display would make the system inoperable or unusable. App. Br. 20. However, as indicated above, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Janninck and Mathews yields the predictable result of changing the display and function of the device based upon the orientation of the device so that the user can “more easily use the device.” Ans. 22. This combination would not have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 418). For the reasons indicated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8, 10-29, and 31-40. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Janninck and Mathews teaches or suggests in response to automatically switching between applications, changing the behavior of the multifunction device such that Appeal 2010-005307 Application 11/174,130 7 content and orientation of the content on the display changes, as required by independent claims 1, 22, and 40. The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine Janninck and Mathews. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8, 10-29, and 31-40 is affirmed. AFFIRMED tj