Ex Parte XIA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2017

13743029 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 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.
13/743,029 01/16/2013 Zhiping XIA 2012.03.009.MC0 6810
06/21/201768103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
PHAM, VIET DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2017 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIPING XIA and HOWARD Z. LEE
Appeal 2017-003155
Application 13/743,0291
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—15. Claims 4 and 11 have been canceled. Br. 11—
12. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-003155
Application 13/743,029
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “an adaptive edge-to-edge
display system for multi-touch devices.” Spec. 11. According to the
Specification, it is a goal to minimize the amount of area on the front surface
of a portable electronic device occupied by a bezel. Spec. H 4—5. In a
disclosed embodiment, a touch screen display is touch-enabled across the
entirety of an outward facing surface of the display. Spec. 1 6. Thus, when
a user is holding the portable electronic device, their grip may overlap the
touch screen display. See Spec. 1 6. Further, in a disclosed embodiment, the
portable electronic device may detect a touch and determine whether the
touch is intended to execute an operation on the device or relates to the user
gripping the device. Spec. H 6—7, 29. If it is determined the touch relates to
a user gripping the device, the display of a User Interface is adjusted
accordingly (e.g., shifted so the User Interface is not obstructed by the user’s
grip on the device). Spec. 116—7, 29, Figs. 2A, 2B.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics'.
1. A method for adjusting a display of a portable electronic device
having a display unit, the method comprising:
detecting a user’s touch of the portable electronic device;
determining touch information including at least one of a
location and an area of the user’s touch on the display unit;
determining whether the user’s touch is a touch input for
executing an operation on the portable electronic device or a user’s
gripping of the portable electronic device according to the touch
information; and
adjusting the displaying of a User Interface (UI) according to the
user’s gripping of the portable electronic device by warping only an
2
Appeal 2017-003155
Application 13/743,029
area of the UI corresponding to a location of the user’s grip of the
portable electronic device so as to move only elements of the UI
included in the area of the UI corresponding to the location of the user’s
gripping of the portable electronic device,
wherein an entirety of an outward facing surface of the display
unit is touch-enabled so as to receive a touch input of a user at any
point of the outward facing surface,
wherein if the user’s touch is the user’s gripping of the portable
electronic device, detecting a change in at least one of position and type
of the user’s grip and generating a notification of the change.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Susani (US 2012/0038571 Al; Feb. 16, 2012)
and Blow et al. (US 2012/0032979 Al; Feb. 9, 2012) (“Blow”). Final
Act. 4-17.
ANALYSIS2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Susani teaches or
suggests “an entirety of an outward facing surface of the display unit is
touch-enabled so as to receive a touch input of a user at any point of the
outward facing surface,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 5—7. In particular,
Appellants argue Susani teaches away from the claimed invention because
Susani teaches part of the touch screen is inactive to a user’s touch. Br. 5—6
(citing Susani || 53—54). Appellants contend Susani teaches the active
portion of the touch screen in Susani excludes a band or area occupied by a
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
July 6, 2016 (“Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 18, 2016
(“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed December 2, 2015 (“Final
Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken.
3
Appeal 2017-003155
Application 13/743,029
user’s hand. Br. 5—6. Appellants also dispute the Examiner’s explanation
(see Adv. Act. 2, mailed February 9, 2016) that the touch screen in Susani is
entirely touch-enabled and is resized when a user’s grip is detected. Br. 6.
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Appellants assert Susani does not teach
the active screen “spring[s] back” to the entire screen after the user removes
their grip from the screen. Br. 6. Thus, Appellants assert Susani fails to
inherently disclose the entirety of an outward facing surface of the display
unit is touch-enabled. Br. 6—7.
Susani is generally directed to dynamically resizing the viewable area
of a touch screen to accommodate a user’s hand contacting a portion of the
screen. Susani 13. Susani describes a touch screen is configured to sense
contact proximate the edges of the device and to determine whether the
contact is intended user interaction with an application or simply grasping
the device by the user. Susani || 8, 54. If it is determined that the contact is
the user grasping the device, the touch screen is configured to “create an
inactive screen portion proximate the contact area and an active screen
portion for the remainder of the touch screen.” Susani | 8.
As an initial matter, the Examiner explains that Appellants’ argument
is premised on an incorrect understanding of what is meant by an active
screen area in Susani. Ans. 3. “The active screen area relates to the display
of the application or operating system that is open on the device at the
moment.” As shown in Figures 1 through 3 of Susani, the active screen is
adjusted (resized) when the user is grasping the device (screen) so that the
user does not inadvertently activate or select some aspect of the currently
running application being displayed. Ans. 3 (citing Susani | 53).
4
Appeal 2017-003155
Application 13/743,029
“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that
the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in
the reference.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(quotation omitted).
Here, the Examiner finds Susani’s resizing of the active screen does
not mean the area occupied by the user’s hand is no longer touch-enabled.
Ans. 3. The Examiner explains the entirety of the display is still touch-
enabled—including the inactive portion proximate the user’s grasp so that it
may be detected when the user’s grasp is released. Ans. 3^4. When the
user’s grasp is released, the active screen springs back to the entire screen.
Ans. 4; see also Susani 110 (“The touch screen is configured to enable the
active screen portion [to] spring back to a full screen mode when contact is
no longer sensed.”). Thus, the Examiner finds, although not considered part
of the active screen area, the area of the display proximate the user’s grasp
(i.e., the inactive area) retains touch sensing operation to determine when the
grasp has been released, further causing the active area to spring back to full
screen mode. Ans. 4.
We agree with the Examiner’s comprehensive response and find the
Examiner’s findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and
are not persuasively rebutted by sufficient persuasive evidence or reasoning
by Appellants. Additionally, because we agree with the Examiner that
Susani teaches the entirety of the display is touch-enabled, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that Susani teaches away from
Appellants’ claimed invention. “A reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
5
Appeal 2017-003155
Application 13/743,029
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants contend the arguments advanced with respect to claim 1 are
applicable to independent claim 7, which recites similar limitations. Br. 8.
Thus, for similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 7. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8—10, and 12—15, which were not argued
separately. See Br. 7—8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—10, and
12-15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6