Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 31, 20212020004385 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2021) 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. 15/507,586 02/28/2017 Soo-Jung BAE 0202-1364 3520 68103 7590 08/31/2021 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER EARLES, BRYAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2021 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): usdocketing@jeffersonip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SOO-JUNG BAE, SANG-HYUK KOH, HA-YOUNG KIM, HYUNG-MIN KIM, MIN-HEE LEE, SEOUL, HYE-MI LEE, HO-YOUNG LEE, CHUL-HO JANG, HYE-RYOUNG CHOI, ANNIE KIM, CHANG-MO YANG ____________________ Appeal 2020-004385 Application 15/507,586 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed February 4, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed May 26, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed March 26, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Rejection mailed October 10, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed February 28, 2017 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2020-004385 Application 15/507,586 2 Appellant2 seeks our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 1–7, 11–17 and 24–29, all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION. The claims relate to a method for operating an electronic device including checking context information for controlling a display divided into a first display and a second display, and controlling at least one of the first display and the second display based on the context information. See Abstract. Claims 1, 11, and 24 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1 which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. An electronic device comprising: a communication interface; at least one sensor; a display including a planar portion and a curved portion extending from the planar portion; a memory configured to store instructions; and 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-004385 Application 15/507,586 3 a processor configured to execute the instructions to: receive, via the communication interface, an incoming call from an external electronic device, while receiving the incoming call, identify that the planar portion of the display is at least partially covered by an external object based at least on information received from the at least one sensor, wherein the information received from the at least one sensor includes illuminance data around the electronic device and posture data of the electronic device, and based at least on identifying that the planar portion of the display is at least partially covered by the external object, display a first visual effect indicating that the incoming call is being received, in the curved portion among the planar portion and the curved portion. Prior Art Name4 Reference Date Sirpal US 2012/0327061 A1 Dec. 27, 2012 Oguri US 2014/0221051 A1 Aug. 7, 2014 Lee US 2014/0370938 A1 Dec. 18, 2014 Ahn US 2015/0095826 A1 Apr. 2, 2015 REJECTIONS5 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 11, 12, 14–17, 24, 25, and 27–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Ahn, and Oguri. Final Act. 2–6. 4 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 5 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-004385 Application 15/507,586 4 2. Claims 3, 13, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Ahn, Oguri, and Sirpal. Final Act. 6–7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has erred. We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive with respect to the rejections under § 103. CLAIMS 1, 2, 4–7, 11, 12, 14–17, 24, 25, AND 27–29: OBVIOUSNESS OVER LEE, AHN, AND OGURI. Appellant states: “While having different scopes, independent claims 11 and 24 recite similar subject matter” to that of Claim 1. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant further states: “Claims 2, 4–7, 12, 14–17, 25, and 27–29 variously depend from independent claims 1, 11, and 24.” Appeal Br. 15. In view of Appellant’s statements, we decide the appeal of the § 103 rejections on the basis of Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he Board is free to select a single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based solely on the selected representative claim” in the absence of a clear statement asserting separate patentability of the claims.). Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “while receiving the incoming call, identify that the planar portion of the display is at least partially covered by an external object based at least on information received from the at least one sensor.” Appeal 2020-004385 Application 15/507,586 5 The Examiner finds: “[t]he primary reference teachings of Lee expressly disclose ‘while receiving the incoming call, identify that the planar portion of the display is at least partially covered by an external object based at least on information received from the at least one sensor.’” Final Act. 9 (citing Lee, ¶¶ 190–191); see Final Act. 3 (citing Lee, ¶ 190; Figs. 15A, 15B). Appellant contends the Examiner fails to consider whether the action, i.e., “identify that the planar portion of the display is at least partially covered by an external object” is performed based on a specific condition, i.e., “while receiving the incoming call.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues “had the claim actually been construed as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would never have been motivated to combine Lee and Oguri,” not because Lee and Oguri individually fail to teach the combination of elements, but rather, Appellant submits the Examiner fails to determine the scope of the claim such that it generally requires information from illuminance and posture sensors which is directly correlated to an operation or temporal condition, i.e., receiving the incoming call. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner states: “[i]n response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Ans. 46. The Examiner finds: [Lee] Paragraphs [0190] - [0191] disclose using a sensing signal of the sensing unit 140 to identify whether or not the display unit 151 is covered by the cover 1510. Additionally, 6 Citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appeal 2020-004385 Application 15/507,586 6 Lee, at paragraph [0073], discloses that the sensing unit provides sensing signal based on various sensors for controlling operations of the mobile terminal. The sensing unit 140 may include, gyro sensor, acceleration sensor, geomagnetic sensor. Lee, at paragraph [0083], discloses the sensing unit including an electromagnetic field strength or infrared proximity sensor. Id. The Examiner further finds: With respect to the Argument section of the Appeal Brief, on pages 10-11, Appellant argues, “had this feature, as well as the claim, been properly considered as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this feature requires a condition (e.g., ‘while receiving the incoming call’) that triggers a decision/action (e.g., ‘identify that the planar portion of the display is at least partially covered by an external object’).” Ans. 5. The Examiner disagrees because: At paragraphs [0190] - [0191], Lee expressly discloses determining whether or not a protective cover 1510 covers the front output unit 151-1 and in response to the determination event information is displayed on a lateral output unit 151-2 and/or front output unit 151-1. Lee’s determination of a cover 1510 occurs when events are received, see figures 15A-15B. The combined teachings of Lee as modified by Ahn and Oguri fully meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the argued claim limitations. Id. at 5–6. Appellant contends: the Examiner fails to actually consider whether one decision/action (e.g., “identify that the planar portion of the display is at least partially covered by an external object”) is performed using a combination of variables (e.g., illuminance data around the electronic device and posture data of the electronic device) when one specific condition (e.g., “while receiving the incoming call”) has been met. Appeal 2020-004385 Application 15/507,586 7 Reply Br. 4. Appellant contends Lee’s disclosure relating to whether the display is covered is not conditioned on receiving a call. See Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4. In response, the Examiner directs our attention to Paragraphs 190 and 191 of Lee. See Ans. 5. Immediately prior to this cited disclosure, Lee discloses: According to the present invention, the controller 180 can control a detailed information on an event to be selectively displayed on either a lateral output unit 151-2 or a front output unit 151-1 depending on appropriateness for the use of the front output unit 151-1 or the lateral output unit 151-2. This is described in detail with reference to FIG. 15A and FIG. 15B as follows [i.e., the portion cited by the Examiner]. Lee, ¶ 189. A person of ordinary skill in the cellphone arts would understand when a cellphone receives a call its controller will display relevant information on an “output unit,” i.e., a screen. On reading Lee’s disclosure, the person of ordinary skill would understand that upon receiving a call, Lee’s controller, based upon the cited disclosure of paragraphs 190 and 191, will determine which of the front or lateral screen is appropriate. Therefore, we find the disputed claim limitation reads on the disclosure of Lee. CLAIMS 28 AND 29. In addition to their dependence from allegedly patentable independent claims, Appellants separately argue Claims 28 and 29 are patentable for at least a further reason. Appeal Br. 15. Claims 28 and 29 recite, inter alia, “wherein the first visual effect is displayed without text in at least one designated color.” Appeal 2020-004385 Application 15/507,586 8 The Examiner finds this limitation appears to be merely an aesthetic design choice equivalent to a requirement that the line be purple. Final Act. 4. We understand this finding to mean the Examiner accords no patentable weight to the limitation. Appellant argues for a limitation to be merely an aesthetic design choice, a person of ordinary skill must consider the feature to have no utilitarian function. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues: one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that the feature required by claims 28 and 29 has more than simply an ornamental function. For example, it may increase efficiency of the device by reducing the battery power required for the display as well as allowing a user to easily perceive a source of the notification. Id. Appellant provides attorney argument, but no evidence, to show that the limitation will result in either a reduced battery requirement, or an increased user perception. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can it take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977). Lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting rejection of independent Claims 11 and 24, nor Claims 2, 4–7, 12, 14–17, 25, and 27–29, dependent therefrom. Appeal 2020-004385 Application 15/507,586 9 CLAIMS 3, 13, AND 26: OBVIOUSNESS OVER LEE, AHN, OGURI, AND SIRPAL. Appellant contends Claims 3, 13, and 26 are patentable in view of their dependence from the independent claims, as discussed above. Appeal Br. 17. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting rejection of independent Claims 3, 13, and 26. DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–7, 11, 12, 14– 17, 24, 25, 27–29 103 Lee, Ahn, Oguri 1, 2, 4–7, 11, 12, 14– 17, 24, 25, 27–29 3, 13, 26 103 Lee, Ahn, Oguri, Sirpal 3, 13, 26 Overall Outcome 1–7, 11– 17, 24–29 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation