Ex Parte Jin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 27, 2012

11132968 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 11/132,968 05/19/2005 Jeong-Gyu Jin 678-2050 7658 66547 7590 11/28/2012 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2172 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/28/2012 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 JEONG-GYU JIN, YONG-KOOK PARK, and LEE-SEOK YOON _____________ Appeal 2010-005251 Application 11/132,968 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BRYAN F. MOORE, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005251 Application 11/132,968 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non- Final Rejection of claims 1-22 which are all the claims pending on appeal. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. INVENTION The invention is directed to a telecommunication terminal having a rotatable display unit. See Spec., 1:13-14. Claims 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. An apparatus for displaying a user interface (UI) for a telecommunication terminal having a rotatable display unit, the apparatus comprising: a rotation sensing unit for sensing the rotation of the display unit; a memory unit for storing UI information on at least one UI screen according to rotation states of the display unit; and a control unit for determining a currently running application in the telecommunication terminal, selecting UI information according to at least one of the rotation states of the display unit and the currently running application, constructing a UI screen according to the selected UI information, rotating the constructed UI screen in a direction according to the rotation state of the display unit, and displaying the UI screen. REFERENCES Takahashi US 2004/0157647 A1 Aug. 12, 2004 Enger US 2005/0020325 A1 Jan. 27, 2005 Appeal 2010-005251 Application 11/132,968 3 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1 and 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Takahashi. Ans. 3-9. Claim 2 is also rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Takahashi and Enger. Ans. 9-10. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Takahashi discloses the following limitation recited in claim 1: “a memory unit for storing UI information on at least one UI screen according to rotation states of the display unit”? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Takahashi discloses the limitation of claim 3 reciting: “the rotation sensing unit has an electromagnet positioned on one of the display unit and the body of the telecommunication terminal, and a magnetic field sensing unit capable of sensing the magnetic field of the electromagnet positioned on the other of the display unit and the body of the telecommunication terminal to sense the rotation state of the display unit through the amount of change of the magnetic field which varies according to the rotation state of the display unit”? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Takahashi teaches the following limitations recited in claim 4: “the rotation sensing unit is adapted to sense the rotation state of the display unit Appeal 2010-005251 Application 11/132,968 4 through the contact between the body of the telecommunication terminal and a contact point of the display unit, which varies according to the rotation state of the display unit”? 4. Did the Examiner err in finding that Takahashi teaches the limitation of claim 9 reciting: “selecting UI information according to at least one of the rotation state of the display unit and the currently-running application; [and] constructing the UI according to the selected UI information” (independent claim 9)? ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) – Takahashi Claims 1 and 3-22 Claim 1 Appellants present arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 17, 19, and 21. Claim 1 recites “a memory unit for storing UI information on at least one UI screen according to rotation states of the display unit.” Appellants argue that Takahashi does not disclose this limitation. App. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants argue that “Takahashi discloses that image data is sequentially stored in a row direction from an upper left pixel to a lower right pixel [as shown in Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C]. Therefore, the storage of the image data in memory is performed independently of a rotation state of the display unit.” Id. We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellants’ arguments focus on Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C (Reply Br. 2- 3), but Takahashi also discloses storing data regarding the orientation of the Appeal 2010-005251 Application 11/132,968 5 screen. See Takahashi [0035]. Specifically Takahashi recites that “phone, the coordinate rotation/transformation module 3 stored in, e.g., the lower portion of the housing 20 determines the orientation of the current screen (display) on the basis of acceleration data input from the gyro chip 11.” Id. The Examiner’s interpretation that Takahashi discloses the storage of UI information according to rotation states of the display unit is consistent with the Appellants’ Specification which recites that “information on the UI screen to be displayed on the display unit 204 according to each UI, include[s] . . . the display position of icons and picture data . . . .” Spec. 6:21-25 (emphasis added). Therefore, we find that the coordinate rotation/transformation module 3 stores information on the UI when it stores the orientation or position of the picture data. See Ans. 11. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Takahashi discloses “a memory unit for storing UI information on at least one UI screen according to rotation states of the display unit.” Id. Appellants argue independent claims 17 and 21, which contain limitations essentially the same as claim 1, are patentable for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1. App. Br. 12-14, and 16-18. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 21, and claims 18 and 22 that depend therefrom. Claim 3 Claim 3 recites “the rotation sensing unit has an electromagnet positioned on one of the display unit and the body of the telecommunication terminal, and a magnetic field sensing unit capable of sensing the magnetic field of the electromagnet positioned on the other of the display unit and the Appeal 2010-005251 Application 11/132,968 6 body of the telecommunication terminal to sense the rotation state of the display unit through the amount of change of the magnetic field which varies according to the rotation state of the display unit.” Appellants argue that Takahashi does not disclose this limitation. App. Br. 7-8. We agree. The Examiner finds that “Takahashi discloses a gyro chip which reads on the electromagnet that is disclosed in claim 3 [and t]he gyro chip is positioned on the display unit and there is a sensing unit that senses the magnetic field that is emitted from the gyro chip.” Ans. 11. However, the Examiner provides no evidence to support this statement or to show, for example, what sensor is reading the electromagnetic field of the gyroscope. The Examiner cites to paragraph 33 of Takahashi which recites that “gyro chip 11 detects an acceleration applied to the housing, and supplies the detection result to the coordinate rotation/transformation module 3.” However, if the gyro chip is read as the electromagnet, then there is no sensor that detects its magnetic field, and if the gyro chip is the sensor then there is no electromagnet whose magnetic field is being sensed. Thus we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. Claim 4 Appellants argue that Takahashi does not disclose “the rotation sensing unit is adapted to sense the rotation state of the display unit through the contact between the body of the telecommunication terminal and a contact point of the display unit, which varies according to the rotation state of the display unit,” as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of those terms encompasses sensing the pressing of a button on the body of the phone which causes the Appeal 2010-005251 Application 11/132,968 7 display to rotate on the contact point between the display and the body of the phone. See Spec. [6], [7], and Fig. 10. We find that there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding. Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation is in error. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Takahashi discloses “the rotation sensing unit is adapted to sense the rotation state of the display unit through the contact between the body of the telecommunication terminal and a contact point of the display unit, which varies according to the rotation state of the display unit.” Id; see also, Ans. 11-12. Claim 9 Claim 9 recites “selecting UI information according to at least one of the rotation state of the display unit and the currently-running application.” Appellants argue that, as to the selecting limitation, Takahashi does not store the display information in the orientation that it will be displayed on the screen. App. Br. 10-11. We addressed this issue above with respect to claim 1and, as noted above, are not persuaded by this argument. Claim 9 also recites “constructing the UI according to the selected UI information.” Appellants argue that Takahashi does not disclose this limitation because “Takahashi merely displays image data without a construction step, which results unused display areas around an image, as shown in FIG. 4A of Takahashi.” App. Br. 11. This argument is not commensurate with the claims because the claims do not require the lack of unused areas around an image. We agree with the Examiner that Takahashi rotates an image 90 degrees and that “changing the orientation [i.e., rotating] Appeal 2010-005251 Application 11/132,968 8 of the same image involves reconstructing the image in a new format.” Ans. 13. Thus, we find that Takahashi discloses “constructing the UI according to the selected UI information.” Appellants argue independent claim 19, which contain limitations essentially the same as claim 9, are patentable for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 9. App. Br. 14-15. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19, and claim 20 that depends therefrom. SUMMARY Claims 5-8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are not argued separately and therefore stand or fall with claims 1, 9, 17, 19, and 21. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 4-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Takahashi. However, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Takahashi. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) – Takahashi and Enger Claim 2 Appellants do not present substantive arguments regarding claim 2, and therefore this claim falls with claim 1. See App. Br. 7. Appeal 2010-005251 Application 11/132,968 9 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-2 and 4-22 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART msc