Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2014

11785404 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HO JOO PARK, JI SUK CHAE, YOUNG HO HAM, KYUNG
HEE YOO, JI AE KIM, YU MI KIM, SANG HYUN SHIN, SEUNG JUN
BAE, YOON HEE KOO, and SEONG CHEOL KANG
____________

Appeal 2013-003700
Application 11/785,4041
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LG Electronics,
Incorporated. (App. Br. 1.)

Appeal 2013-003700
Application 11/785,404

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a touch screen device and operating
method thereof. (Spec. para. 1.)
The present application includes claims 1–25, each of which are at
issue on appeal. Exemplary independent claims 1 and 6, read as follows:
1. A touch screen device, comprising:
a touch screen comprising a display configured to display
menu images thereon and a detector configured to detect a
screen touch; and
a controller configured to control operations of the touch
screen device according to the screen touch detected by the
detector, wherein the touch screen is divided by the controller
into an execution area configured to execute a menu
corresponding to a menu image placed on the execution area
when the execution area is touched, and a selection area
configured to display one or more menu images and
sequentially move the one or more menu images to the
execution area when the selection area is touched irrespective
of whether the touch on the selection area is dragged or not.

6. A touch screen device, comprising:
a touch screen comprising a display configured to display
menu images thereon and a detector configured to detect a
screen touch; and
a controller configured to control operations of the touch
screen device according to the screen touch detected by the
detector, wherein the touch screen is divided by the controller
into a moving area configured to move a menu image from a
touch point along a drag line while the menu image is dragged,
and an execution area configured to execute a menu
corresponding to the menu image when the touch is released on
the execution area, wherein when the menu image is dragged
into the execution area, a menu image previously located in the
execution area pops out of the execution area and returns to its
original position in the moving area.

Appeal 2013-003700
Application 11/785,404

3
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims.
Lee US 5,831,616 Nov. 3, 1998
Abrams US 2002/0158920 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Yoshihara US 2004/0056839 A1 Mar. 25, 2004

Greg Scoblete, SanDisk Introduces Flash Drives, MP3 Players,
Twice (Jan. 30, 2006), http://www.twice.com/article/print/250682-
SanDisk_Introduces_Flash_Drives_MP3 _Player (hereinafter
"Scoblete").

35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yoshihara.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejections
Claims 1–5, 8, 11–13, 18–21, and 24–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yoshihara and Abrams.
Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yoshihara, Abrams, and Scoblete.
Claims 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yoshihara and Abrams.
Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yoshihara and Scoblete.
Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yoshihara, Abrams, and Scoblete.
Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yoshihara, Scoblete, and Lee.
Appeal 2013-003700
Application 11/785,404

4
Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yoshihara, Abrams, and Lee.

ISSUES
The dispositive issues on appeal are:
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6, 7, 9, and 22–24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yoshihara because
Yoshihara fails to disclose when a menu image is dragged into an execution
area, a menu image previously located in the execution area pops out of the
execution area, and returns to its original position in the moving area?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–5, 8, 11–13, 18–21,
and 24–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshihara
and Abrams because the combination of Yoshihara and Abrams does not
teach or suggest sequentially moving one or more menu images displayed on
the selection area to the execution area when the selection area is touched
irrespective of whether the touch on the section area is dragged or not?

ANALYSIS
1. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 22–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Yoshihara.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting Claims 6, 7, 9,
and 22–24 as being anticipated by Yoshihara because Yoshihara fails to
disclose that when a menu image is dragged into an execution area, a menu
image previously located in the execution area pops out of the execution
area and returns to its original position in the moving area. (App. Br. 11.)
Appeal 2013-003700
Application 11/785,404

5
The Examiner explains that Yoshihara illustrates in Figures 6B–6E
that when a menu image (e.g., icon 44a in the upper left hand corner of the
screen) is dragged into the execution area (e.g., dragged to the lower middle
of the screen to a square box labeled “3” in symbol array 45), a menu image
previously located in the execution area pops out of the execution area and
returns to its original position in the moving area, e.g., when transitioning
from Figure 6D to Figure 6E, icon 44a pops out from over box labeled “3”
in symbol array 45 and returns to its original position in the upper left hand
corner of the screen. (Ans. 15–16.) The Examiner thus finds that the menu
image being dragged into the execution area is also the menu image
“previously located” in the execution area. Based upon the Examiner’s
aforementioned interpretation, we agree with the Appellants’ assertion of
error.
Independent Claim 6 states in relevant part “ . . . when the menu
image is dragged into the execution area, a menu image previously located
in the execution area pops out of the execution area and returns to its
original position in the moving area.” (Emphasis added.) Yoshihara in
Figures 6B–6E shows a menu image being dragged into the execution area,
not a menu image previously located in the execution area popping out of
the execution area and returning to its original position. (See App. Br. 11.)
We conclude the Examiner erred in finding that Yoshihara discloses
“when the menu image is dragged into the execution area, a menu image
previously located in the execution area pops out of the execution area and
returns to its original position in the moving area,” as recited in claims 6, 7,
9, and 22–24. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of claims 6, 7, 9, and 22–24.
Appeal 2013-003700
Application 11/785,404

6
We further conclude the Examiner has not demonstrated that
Yoshihara teaches or suggests this limitation, alone or in combination with
Abrams or Scoblete. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 8, 10, and 25, which depend, directly or indirectly,
from independent claims 6 and 22.
2. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1–5, 8, 11–13, 18–21, and 24–25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshihara and Abrams.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–5, 8,
11–13, 18–21, and 24–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yoshihara, in view of Abram, because Yoshihara is silent with respect
to the claimed feature of sequentially moving one or more menu images
displayed on the selection area to the execution area when the selection area
is touched irrespective of whether the touch on the section area is dragged or
not. (App. Br. 16.) Appellants further argue that Abrams fails to overcome
the deficiencies of Yoshihara because Abrams discloses improving usage of
a pointing device by a physically impaired user by learning how a user
moves the pointing device when the user moves from source point icons to
destination point icons, but fails to disclose sequentially moving one or more
menu images displayed on the selection area to the execution area when the
selection area is touched irrespective of whether the touch on the selection
area is dragged or not. (Id.)
The Examiner explains that paragraph 20 of Abrams suggests moving
a graphic when selected irrespective of whether the selection is dragged or
not and that the sequential movement, as claimed, may be the manual
repetition of that which was performed initially. (Ans. 16.) The Examiner
Appeal 2013-003700
Application 11/785,404

7
further explains that the manual repetition of moving menu images, e.g.,
selecting more than one menu image to be moved over the course of using
an electronic device is implicitly suggested by the cited prior art for the
purposes of realizing the functionality of the electronic device. (Id. at 16–
17.) Based upon the Examiner’s aforementioned interpretation, we agree
with the Appellants’ assertion of error.
Independent claim 1 states in relevant part “a selection area
configured to display one or more menu images and sequentially move the
one or more menu images to the execution area when the selection area is
touched irrespective of whether the touch on the selection area is dragged or
not.” (Emphasis added.) The cited passages of Yoshihara, alone or in
combination with the cited passages of Abrams, do not teach or suggest the
sequential movement of one or more menu images when the selection area is
touched. Paragraph 20 of Abrams cited by the Examiner (Ans. 16) teaches
the movement of a source point icon, and the generation of a motion vector
for prediction of the destination, not the sequential movement of menu
images when the selection area is touched irrespective of whether the touch
on the selection area is dragged or not. (See App. Br. 16.)
We conclude the Examiner erred in finding the cited passages of
Yoshihara in combination with the cited passages of Abrams teach “a
selection area configured to display one or more menu images and
sequentially move the one or more menu images to the execution area when
the selection area is touched irrespective of whether the touch on the
selection area is dragged or not,” as recited in claims 1–5, 8, 11–13, 18–21,
and 24–25. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1–5, 8, 11–13, 18–21, and 24–25.
Appeal 2013-003700
Application 11/785,404

8
We further conclude that the Examiner has not demonstrated that
Yoshihara combined with Abrams, with or without further combination with
Scoblete or Lee, teaches or suggests this limitation. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent
claims 14–17, which depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim
11.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25 is reversed.

REVERSED

hh