Ex Parte Lim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2012

11240442 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RUTH ANN LIM and KARL R. HASSUR
____________

Appeal 2010-007653
Application 11/240,442
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-17. Claims 18-20 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The disclosed invention relates generally to a user interface for
managing display resolution (Spec. 3).
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
Appeal 2010-007653
Application 11/240,442

2
1. A method for managing display resolution of a
display from a first distance comprising:
presenting resolutions for the display in a graphical user
interface environment, wherein one or more of the resolutions
include resolutions unavailable to the user via an operating
system setting and the graphical user interface environment is
configured to be readable at a first distance wherein the first
distance is more than approximately two meters,
wherein if the graphical user interface environment is
presented in a display resolution unsupported by the operating
system, eliminating a portion of the graphical user interface
environment that would be hidden or viewable by scrolling as a
result of presenting the graphical user interface environment in
the display resolution unsupported by the operating system;
receiving a selection of a display resolution presented in
the graphical user interface environment;
selecting a native display setting in response to the
selection of the display resolution; and
applying the native display setting to the display.

(App. Br. 14, Claims Appendix.)

The Examiner rejects claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over SoundGraph, Inc., “iMON & Multi-Median Users Guide,”
2004 (hereinafter “SoundGraph”), Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “APA” –
Spec. 1-2, Figs. 1-2), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0234804
A1 (hereinafter “Parker”), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2004/0012627 A1 (hereinafter “Zakharia”).

Appeal 2010-007653
Application 11/240,442

3
Issue
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-17?
Principles of Law
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Analysis
The Specification discloses “eliminating hidden portions of [displayed
content] . . . so that a user may not be burdened with scrolling to display
selections [of the displayed content]” (p. 4, [Para 18]; see also, Figs. 2 and
3). As indicated above, claim 1 recites “eliminating a portion” of a display
that “would be hidden or viewable by scrolling.” The Examiner states that
Zakharia discloses this feature. Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding.
We agree with the Examiner for at least the reasons set forth by the
Examiner (Ans. 15-21).
For example, as the Examiner points out, Zakharia discloses that a
browser “renders . . . content . . . for a small display . . . . while avoiding . . .
Appeal 2010-007653
Application 11/240,442

4
the need for horizontal scrolling” ([0061]). Hence, the portion of the display
of Zakharia that would have necessitated “horizontal scrolling” is
“eliminated” (i.e., is removed so that it is no longer present in a state in
which horizontal scrolling is necessary) and the content is displayed on the
“small display.”
Appellants argue that Figs. 2 and 3 of the Specification “is simply one
illustrative representation of a display . . . . showing . . . portions of . . . .
[display content being] reduced, rather than eliminated” (App. Br. 10) and
that “it is not proper for the Examiner to base . . . [a rejection] on a figure
showing an embodiment of ‘reducing’” (id.). Appellants do not sufficiently
demonstrate, however, how Zakharia’s disclosure of displaying content on a
small display without the need for horizontal scrolling differs for the claim
feature of “eliminating a portion” of a display that would be viewable by
scrolling. In both Zakharia and the claimed invention, a portion of a display
that would have been viewable by scrolling is eliminated (i.e., no longer
present).
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-17.

SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Appeal 2010-007653
Application 11/240,442

5
AFFIRMED

rvb