Ex Parte Yan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

12942463 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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.
12/942,463 11/09/2010 Qifeng Yan 042933/398284 1735
10949 7590
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
EARLES, BRYAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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 sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QIFENG YAN
Appeal 2016-007257
Application 12/942,463
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007257
Application 12/942,463
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3—18, and 20—22. Final Act. 1. Claims 2 and 19 have been
cancelled. App. Br. 12, 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claims 1 and 21 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis
and formatting added):
1. An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor and
at least one memory including computer program code, the at
least one memory and the computer program code configured
to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least
to:
receive information on presence of an object in a first
position and in close proximity to a touch screen surface;
receive indication of a display element currently
associated with the object, the display element being displayed
such that the display element appears displaced from the
screen surface level in a z-direction substantially perpendicular
to the screen surface;
receive indication of a transition of the object from the
first position to a second position, wherein the second position
indicates the object is in contact with the screen surface', and
cause the display element to change such that the display
element is displayed substantially at the touch screen surface
and is substantially in contact with the object in response to
receiving indication of the transition.
2
Appeal 2016-007257
Application 12/942,463
21. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display
element is
displayed such that the display element appears to float
above the screen surface level in the z-direction, and wherein
the at least one memory and the computer program code are
further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the
apparatus to:
receive an indication of a transition of the object from the
first position to a third position, wherein the third position
indicates that the object is in proximity to the touch screen
surface without being in contact with the screen surface, and
wherein the third position is displaced from the screen surface
by a different distance than the first position; and
cause the display element to change in response to
receiving the indication of the transition to the third position
such that the display element is displayed so as to appear
displaced from the screen surface level in the z-direction by a
different distance than in response to the object being in the
first position.
Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6—11, 15—18, and 20-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim
(US 2010/0095206 Al, published Apr. 15, 2010) and Ku et al.
(US 2009/0315848 Al, published Dec. 24, 2009).1
1 Separate patentability is argued for claim 1 (App. Br. 7—10; Reply Br. 3 4)
and claim 21 (Reply Br. 2). Separate patentability is not argued for claims
6—11, 15—18, 20, and 22. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are
not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2016-007257
Application 12/942,463
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Ku, and Song
et al. (EP 1739980 Al, published Jan. 3, 2007).
3. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Ku, Song, and Meijer et
al. (US 2009/0102805 Al, published Apr. 23, 2009).2
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he display elements of Kim do not appear to be displaced
from the screen surface level in the z-direction, but instead
appear to originate at the screen surface level and to extend
outwardly from the screen surface level. Thus, the display
elements of Kim always appear to remain in contact with the
screen surface level and not to be displaced from the screen
surface level.
App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The secondary references also fail to teach or suggest that the
display element is displaced from the screen surface level in the
z-direction. Ku merely discloses a two-dimensional user
interface with no teaching or suggestion of the displacement of
a display element from the screen surface level in the
z-direction.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3—5 and 12—14. Thus, the
rejections of these claims turn on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
4
Appeal 2016-007257
Application 12/942,463
App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he Official Action recognizes that Kim fails to disclose
receiving an indication of a transition of the object from the first
position to a second position with the second position indicating
that the object is in contact with the screen surface and, instead,
the Official Action cites Ku in regards to this recitation. ... As
Kim admittedly fails to teach or suggest receiving an indication
of a transition of the object from the first position to the second
position in which the object is in contact with the screen surface,
it logically follows that Kim also cannot teach or suggest causing
the display element to change so as to be displayed substantially
at the touch screen surface in response to receiving the indication
of the transition to a second position in which the object is in
contact with the screen surface.
App. Br. 8—9 (emphasis added).
4. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The independent claims do not merely recite that the display
elements appear recessed relative to or appear to protrude from
the screen. Instead, the independent claims recite that the display
element appears displaced from the screen surface level in the z-
direction. It is submitted that this recitation is not “vague” as
alleged by the Examiner’s Answer on page 18. Moreover,
Applicants disagree with the contention put forward by the
Examiner’s Answer that “all information displayed on a screen
is displayed such that the information is displaced from the
screen surface level perpendicular to the screen.” Instead, the
present application is both clear and consistent in its description
of a display element appearing to be displaced from the screen
surface level in the z-direction and illustrates in Figures la and
lb and describes in paragraphs [0015] and [0029] that the display
element appears to float above or be below the screen surface
level.
5
Appeal 2016-007257
Application 12/942,463
Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added).
5. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[Njeither Kim nor Ku nor any combination thereof teaches or
suggests causing the display element to change so as to be
displayed substantially at the touch screen surface in response to
receiving the indication of the transition to a second position in
which the object is in contact with the screen surface.
Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added).
6. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he display elements of Kim are not taught or suggested to
float above the screen surface level in the z-direction, as recited
in Claim[] 21.
Reply Br. 2.
7. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Ku also fails to teach or suggest that the display element appears
to float above the screen surface level in the z-direction.
Reply Br. 2.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious for the
reasons argued by Appellant?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 21 as being obvious for the
reasons argued by Appellant?
6
Appeal 2016-007257
Application 12/942,463
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant’s conclusions.
As to Appellant’s above contention 1, we disagree. Appellant’s
Specification states that the claimed “display elements” can be “graphical
items” or “icons.” Spec. 2:29—30. The Examiner cites to Kim’s Figure 3.
Final Act. 7. Our review of Figure 3 finds a widget 32 protruding from the
screen with an upper surface showing an envelope graphical item. This
upper surface graphical item is displaced from the screen surface level in a
z-direction as required by claim 1. The widget also shows sides extending
from this upper surface of the widget to the screen surface level. However,
this is not precluded by claim 1.
As to Appellant’s above contention 2, we disagree. Appellant’s
Specification states that the claimed displacement is achieved by “causing]
visualization of the display element closer to the screen surface” or
“causing] visualization of the display element further away from the screen
surface.” Spec. 10:25—32. The Examiner cites to Ku’s paragraphs 342—343.
Final Act. 8. Our review of these paragraphs finds that they discuss
adjusting the magnification of the selected object based on the distance of
the proximity touch. Further, preceding paragraph 341 states that selected
objects can be enlarged or minified. Such changes in magnification
inherently cause objects to appear closer or further away, i.e., cause objects
to appear displaced.3 Ku is a two-dimensional interface. However, this is of
3 See column 2, lines 31—35 of Torgerson et al. (US 9454283 Bl; iss. Sept.
27, 2016; filed June 11, 2008) (“For example, a “fish eye” focus may be
7
Appeal 2016-007257
Application 12/942,463
no moment as Kim teaches 3D image display and Appellant admits that 3D
image displays are known for portable devices. Spec. 1:12—15. Although
the rejection does not depend thereon, the 2D image magnifications of Ku
are more than sufficient to suggest displacement in a 3D image display.
As to Appellant’s above contention 3, we disagree. The premise of
Appellant’s argument is that Kim fails to disclose a second position with the
second position indicating that the object is in contact with the screen
surface. This premise overlooks that Kim at paragraphs 100—101 explicitly
teaches an embodiment where “the user may touch and select the desired
widgets on the touchscreen 31.” Although the bulk of Kim is directed to
embodiments where the screen is not touched, Kim’s disclosure and claimed
invention are not so limited.
As to Appellant’s above contention 4, we disagree. We agree with
Appellant that claim 8 is not vague for using the term “displaced.” Rather,
the claim term is simply broad. However, although we agree with
Appellant’s argument, this argument does not serve to distinguish the claim
over the prior art. That is, this argument is not relevant to the rejection
before us.
As to Appellant’s above contention 5, we disagree. As discussed
above for contention 3, Appellant’s premise overlooks that Kim explicitly
teaches a second position indicating that the object is in contact with the
screen surface. Further, we also agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that
Ku teaches receiving indication of a transition of an object from the first
presented that magnifies items of importance to make them appear closer to
a user while de-emphasizing items of lesser importance by shrinking them so
as to appear farther away from the user”).
8
Appeal 2016-007257
Application 12/942,463
position to a second position wherein the second position indicates the object
is in contact with the screen surface. Final Act. 8.
As to Appellant’s above contentions 6 and 7, we disagree for the
reasons discussed above as to contentions 1 and 2.
CONCLUSION
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 3—18, and 20—
22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1, 3—18, and 20—22 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—18, and 20—22 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9