Ex Parte OHTA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13093553 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
13/093,553 04/25/2011 Keizo OHTA MEN-723-3069 8925
27562 7590 12/02/2016
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
LANDIS, LISAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEIZO OHTA, TAIYO HARA, and
MASAAKI TATSUMI
Appeal 2015-006055
Application 13/093,553
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—27. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—6, 9, and 16—26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Brenneman (US 2010/0177047 Al; July 15, 2010). Final
Act. 2—8.
Claims 7, 8, 10-15, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Brenneman and Ohta (US 2010/0225583 Al; Sep. 9, 2010).
Final Act. 9—18.
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-006055
Application 13/093,553
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “information processing performed by
an information processing apparatus including two housings.” Spec. 11.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a first housing including an orientation detector
configured to detect aspects of orientation; and
a second housing including a first screen section
configured to display an image, the second housing being
connected to the first housing such that a relative orientation of
the second housing with respect to the first housing can be
changed,
the information processing apparatus configured to
perform display processing for the first screen section in the
second housing based on a value obtained by adding an offset
to detected data output by the orientation detector, in the first
housing, which aspects of orientation are calculated based on
the detected data.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1-6,9, and 16-26 by Brenneman
Claims 1, 4—6, 9, and 16—26
The Examiner finds Brenneman describes all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 3 (citing Brenneman || 18—20); see also Ans. 2—3.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i.
Brenneman thus describes determining the orientation of a
touch screen by using a controller connected to the sensor
within the touch screen. Brenneman does not determine the
orientation of a first touch screen based on an orientation
detected by an orientation detector housed in a second touch
2
Appeal 2015-006055
Application 13/093,553
screen. Nor does Brenneman apply an offset to the detected
value of an orientation detector in a housing of another display.
App. Br. 13—14; see also Reply Br. 2-A.
ii. “Brenneman combines information from an orientation detector
in the other display with that of another sensor in order to determine the
relative orientation between the displays.” App. Br. 14 (citing Brenneman
120). “Brenneman thus does not apply an offset from the orientation
detected by a second display to determine the orientation of a first display.”
App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded of error in the contested findings of the
Examiner.
The Examiner finds Brenneman’s (Figure 1) display 4 with sensor 30
describes the recited (claim 1) “a first housing including an orientation
detector.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Brenneman’s (Figure 1) display
14 describes the recited (claim 1) “a second housing including a first screen
section.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Brenneman (^f 19—20 (sensor
30 determining physical orientation of screen 6 of display 4 relative to a
physical orientation of screen 16 of display 14)) describes the recited (claim
1) “perform display processing for the first screen section in the second
housing based on a value obtained by adding an offset to detected data
output by the orientation detector.” Final Act. 3. We agree with and adopt
these findings as our own.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument (i), Brenneman describes
determining the orientation of screen 16 of display 14 based on sensor 30.
See Brenneman 119 (“Based on the point of reference [established from
sensor 30], controller 26 determines the physical orientation of first touch
screen 6 and, as a consequence, the physical orientation of second touch
3
Appeal 2015-006055
Application 13/093,553
screen 16.”). Further, because the orientations of the first touch screen 6 and
the second touch screen 16 are not identical, Brenneman discloses the offset
as a difference between the orientations (Brenneman || 19, 20—determining
relative orientation between displays). Claim 1 does not specify further
details of the offset. Thus, Brenneman’s arrangement describes the claim
language, as broadly recited.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (ii), Brenneman (| 20) discloses:
“Second sensor 34 is operatively connected to controller 26 and, in
combination with sensor 30 determines a physical orientation of first touch
screen 6 relative to second touch screen 16.” Nonetheless, a skilled artisan
would have understood that Brenneman’s disclosures in 119 describe the
claim limitations as broadly recited, as discussed above. Put another way,
Brenneman 119 describes controller 26, with input from sensor 30,
determining the physical orientation of first touch screen 6 and the physical
orientation of second touch screen 16.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 4—6, 9, and 16—26, which are not separately argued with particularity.
Claim 2
The Examiner finds Brenneman describes all limitations of claim 2.
Final Act. 4 (citing Brenneman || 19-20); see also Ans. 3^4.
4
Appeal 2015-006055
Application 13/093,553
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Brenneman does not allow a user to input information
indicating the relative orientation of the displays, let alone set a
value of an offset based on this input information. At best,
Brenneman explains that an image of the user can be used to
determine a point of reference in which the point of reference is
used to calculate orientation of the first and second displays.
App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 4—5.
We are not persuaded of error in the contested findings of the
Examiner.
The Examiner finds Brenneman’s disclosure of using an image from
sensor 30 to establish a point of reference describes the recited (claim 2)
“enable a player to input relative orientation information indicating the
relative orientation of the second housing with respect to the first housing.”
Final Act. 4 (citing Brenneman 119). The Examiner further finds
Brenneman’s sensor 34 describes the recited (claim 2) “set the value of the
offset.” Final Act. 4 (citing Brenneman 120). We agree with and adopt
these findings as our own.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the image from sensor 30 in
Brenneman does allow a user to input information because the user is able to
move touch screen system 2; thus, the image from sensor 30 results from
actions of the user. Further, Brenneman (| 20) discloses: “Second sensor 34
is operatively connected to controller 26 and, in combination with sensor 30
determines a physical orientation of first touch screen 6 relative to second
touch screen 16.” Thus, sensor 34 in combination with sensor 30 sets the
value of the offset based on the input information from the user (image from
sensor 30). Similar to claim 1, claim 2 also does not specify further details
of the offset.
5
Appeal 2015-006055
Application 13/093,553
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3
The Examiner finds Brenneman describes all limitations of claim 3.
Final Act. 4—5 (citing Brenneman H 18—20); see also Ans. 4.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Brenneman does not enable a player to input relative orientation
information including a value indicating a relative opening
angle of one housing with respect to another housing. At best,
Brenneman uses the point of reference to determine orientation
of each screen. However, using the point of reference does not
correlate to actually determining the relative opening angle
(e.g., 90°, 180°). That is, Brenneman fails to disclose or
suggest that “the player is enabled to input, as the relative
orientation information, a value indicating a relative opening
angle of the second housing with respect to the first housing,”
as required by dependent claim 3.
App. Br. 16—17; see also Reply Br. 5.
We are not persuaded of error in the contested Examiner’s findings.
The Examiner finds Brenneman’s sensors 30 and 34 describe the
recited (claim 3) “the player is enabled to input, as the relative orientation
information, a value indicating a relative opening angle of the second
housing with respect to the first housing.” Final Act. 5 (citing Brenneman
1119-20). We agree with and adopt this finding as our own.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the image from sensor 30 results
from actions of the user. See Brenneman 119. The image from sensor 30
indicates a relative opening angle of the second housing with respect to the
first housing. Claim 3 does not specify any further details of the value.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
6
Appeal 2015-006055
Application 13/093,553
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7, 8,10-15, and 27 over
Brenneman and Ohta
The Examiner finds Brenneman and Ohta teach all the limitations of
claim 27. Final Act. 16—18; see also Ans. 4—5.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i. Brenneman is not estimating the orientation of one
housing based on orientation information provided from
equipment (e.g., inertial sensors) in another housing, as well as
an offset that is determined based on the opening angle between
first and second housings. In fact, Brenneman does not appear
to at all apply an offset to an orientation value of one housing,
let alone apply an offset derived from the angle in which the
housings are opened with respect to each other.
App. Br. 17—18; see also Reply Br. 6—7.
ii. Ohta does not estimate the orientation of one housing
based on orientation information provided from equipment
(e.g., inertial sensors) in another housing, and an offset that is
determined based on the opening angle between first and
second housings. Nor would Ohta describe such features as
Ohta is not at all directed to an apparatus having first and
second housings spatially separated by an angle of opening
where the angle of opening between the two housings is used to
determine an offset value.
App. Br. 19.
We are not persuaded of error in the contested Examiner’s findings.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner finds Brenneman teaches all limitations of claim 27,
except for the recited (claim 27) “control a viewpoint of a virtual camera,”
for which the Examiner relies on Ohta. Final Act. 16—18. We agree with
and adopt these findings as our own. The Examiner reasons and concludes:
7
Appeal 2015-006055
Application 13/093,553
At the time the invention was made, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
information processing apparatus of Brenneman to include the
viewpoint change based on the input object’s orientation of
Ohta because such a modification is the result of combining
prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results. More specifically, the information
processing apparatus of Brenneman as modified by the
viewpoint change based on the input object's orientation of
Ohta can yield a predictable result of having device capable of
using housing orientation to affect the viewpoint of the display.
Final Act. 18. We agree with and adopt these reasons and conclusion as our
own.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument (i), and as noted supra with respect
to claim 1, Brenneman describes determining the orientation of screen 16 of
display 14 based on sensor 30. See Brenneman 119. Further, because the
orientations of the first touch screen 6 and the second touch screen 16 are
not identical, Brenneman discloses the offset as a difference between the
orientations. The image from sensor 30 indicates a relative opening angle of
the second housing with respect to the first housing. See Brenneman 119.
Further, sensor 34 in combination with sensor 30 sets the value of the offset.
See Brenneman 120.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (ii), these argued limitations are
taught by Brenneman. See Brenneman H 19-20. The Examiner does not
rely on Ohta for these argued limitations; rather, the Examiner relies on
Brenneman. See Final Act. 16—18; Ans. 5. Thus, Appellants’ arguments do
not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective
to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
8
Appeal 2015-006055
Application 13/093,553
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27, as well as
claims 7, 8, and 10—15, which are not separately argued with particularity.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
9