Ex Parte Miyazawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2017

14317488 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2017)

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.
14/317,488 06/27/2014 Yusuke MIYAZAWA 1946-0048A 6210
60803 7590 10/26/2017
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
EXAMINER
GRAY, RYAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2017 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 YUSUKE MIYAZAWA, SEIJI SUZUKI,
and YASUSHI OKUMURA
Appeal 2017-006351
Application 14/317,48s1
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 21, 28, 29, 32—36, 39-50, and 52, which are all of
the claims pending in this application. Claims 1—20, 22—27, 30, 31, 37, 38,
and 51 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-006351
Application 14/317488
INVENTION
Appellants’ application relates to an information processing apparatus
including a display, a touch panel, a program, and a control method.
Spec. 1. Claim 21 reads as follows:
21. An information processing apparatus, comprising:
circuitry configured to initiate a determination of an inclination
or a change in inclination of a device; and
initiate a changing of a display mode for displaying of
information by the device, between a first display mode and a
second display mode, in relation to the determined inclination or
change in inclination of the device,
wherein the inclination or the change in inclination is
determined relative to a plane of the displayed information,
wherein in the first display mode, a display object is
displayed, and
wherein in the second display mode, one of a display
feature or a functionality is enabled, and additional information
related to the display object is displayed, wherein the one of the
display feature or the functionality is disabled in the first display
mode.
REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 42-47, 49, and 52 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fong et al.
(US 2010/0131904 Al; pub. May 27, 2010) (“Fong”) and Yach et al. (US
2010/0088639 Al; pub. April 8, 2010) (“Yach”).
Claims 34, 35, 41, 48, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Fong, Yach and Venon et al. (US
Patent 8,543,415 B2; iss. Sept. 24, 2013) (“Venon”).
2
Appeal 2017-006351
Application 14/317488
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions.
Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and
legal conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
additional points.
Rejection of Claims 21, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 42—47, 49, and 52
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner found Fong teaches the limitation
“circuitry configured to initiate a determination of an inclination or change
in inclination of a device,” and further teaches changing the user interface in
response to the device orientation. Final Act. 2—4\ Ans. 2 (citing Fong 19).
The Examiner relied on Yach for teaching a change in mode. Final Act.
4—5. Specifically, the Examiner found Yach’s switching between portrait
and landscape screen orientations teaches “changing of a display mode.”
Id.', Ans. 16—17.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the combination of Fong
and Yach teaches or suggests changing the orientation of the display of
information between landscape and portrait based on the rotation of the
device around the Z-axis, which is not a rotation “relative to a plane of the
displayed information,” as claim 21 requires. App. Br. 13.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner relied on
Fong’s accelerometer 105 to teach or suggest determining “an inclination or
a change in inclination of a device,” as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 4, see
3
Appeal 2017-006351
Application 14/317488
Fong, Figs. 1—3, 9, 25. We agree with the Examiner’s finding because
Fong’s tilt and rotation around an axis of a display teaches or at least
suggests “change in inclination is determined relative to a plane of the
displayed information,” as recited in claim 21. Ans. 2 (citing Fong 19).
Fong teaches that accelerometer 105 detects a tilt of the display 180 by
detecting a rotation or a translation of the computing device, and indicates a
tilt of the display 180 to an orientation module in computer program 130.
Id. The Examiner relied on Yach as teaching the recited limitation “initiate
a changing of a display mode for displaying of information by the device
between a first display mode and a second display mode.” Final Act. 4—5;
Ans. 14—16 (citing Yach Figs. 10A, 10B, || 65, 66, 101, 102). We agree
with the Examiner’s finding because Yach’s portrait and landscape modes
teach or at least suggest changing a display mode. Id.
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s specific
findings regarding each reference. Appellants argue in the Reply Brief the
Examiner interprets the claim term “inclination” as broad enough to
encompass “rotation about any axis.” Reply Br. 4; see also Ans. 13—14.
Appellants, however, have not persuaded us that the Examiner’s
interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the
Specification.2 We agree with the Examiner’s broad, but reasonable, claim
interpretation, which supports the Examiner’s finding that both Fong’s and
Yach’s capability of detecting rotation around any axis and contemplating
feature changes responsive to a specific rotation teaches or at least suggests
2 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
4
Appeal 2017-006351
Application 14/317488
“inclination . . . relative to a plane of the displayed information.” Ans. 13.
We agree with the Examiner because Fong’s device’s tilt is detected as
having a rotation on an axis, and this tilted view, which includes a graphical
element that was not displayed in the first view, teaches or at least suggests
the disputed limitation. See Fong, || 25—27.
Appellants also contend the Examiner engaged in impermissible
hindsight in combining the references. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5.
We disagree. The Examiner noted that an artisan of ordinary skill
would have found it obvious to combine Fong’s and Yach’s teachings to
change the display mode responsive to device orientation in small devices.
Final Act. 6. The Examiner has set forth articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings for the combination. Final Act. 22. Appellants have not
identified any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only
from Appellants’ disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443
F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Nor have Appellants provided objective
evidence of secondary considerations, which “operates as a beneficial check
on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc.,
725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Because Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings
regarding the disputed limitations of claim 21, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
representative independent claim 21. We also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of grouped claims 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 39,3 40, 42^47, 49, and 52,
3 In the event of further prosecution, claim 39 should be canceled or
amended to correct its dependency, because a claim that depends from a
5
Appeal 2017-006351
Application 14/317488
for which Appellants make no separate arguments for patentability. See
37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Rejection of Claims 34, 35, 41, 48 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Because Appellants present no separate, substantive arguments
directed to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 34, 35,41, 48, and
50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (App. Br. 16—17), we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21, 28, 29, 32—36,
39-50, and 52.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
canceled claim is of indefinite scope. See MPEP § 1213.02. Appellant
states that claim 39 should depend from claim 21 (App. Br. 16), but no
amendment has been entered.
6