Ex Parte XIA et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 19, 201713743029 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation