Ex Parte Braun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 5, 2018

14661132 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018)

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.
14/661,132 03/18/2015 Mark Braun MM01091/2100.000200 7391
138868 7590
Lenovo/Motorola Mobility
c/o Amerson Law Firm, PLLC
2500 Fondren Road, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77063
EXAMINER
GRAY, RYAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2018 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):
uspto @ amersoniplaw.com
docketing. mobility @ motorola, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK BRAUN and FRANCIS FOREST
Appeal 2017-009863
Application 14/661,132
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-009863
Application 14/661,132
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
23-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ application relates to controlling the orientation of a
device display based on usage context parameters. Spec. 4:23-24. For
example, if the device identifies an orientation change event, the change in
the orientation of the display may be implemented or suppressed based on
parameters such as the user’s facial position or hand grip. Spec. 5:3-7.
Claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
23. A method for controlling an orientation of data on a
display of a device, comprising:
determining a device angular position for the device;
determining a user context parameter;
identifying a display orientation change event responsive
to the device angular position exceeding an orientation angle
threshold associated with a first orientation for displaying the
data;
querying a user of the device for a display orientation
preference responsive to identifying the display orientation
change event and responsive to determining that the user
context parameter is consistent with the first orientation; and
locking the orientation of the data on the display in the
first orientation responsive to the display orientation preference
indicating the first orientation.
2
Appeal 2017-009863
Application 14/661,132
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gardiner US 2012/0057064 A1 Mar. 8, 2012
Hunt US 2013/0141464 A1 June 6, 2013
Raffa US 2014/0267006 A1 Sept. 18,2014
Mok US 2014/0320536 A1 Oct. 30, 2014
Li US 2015/0022558 A1 Jan. 22, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 23, 24, 27-29, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Raffa, Gardiner, and Hunt.
Claims 25 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raffa, Gardiner, Hunt, and Mok.1
Claims 26 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raffa, Gardiner, Hunt, and Li.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Raffa, Gardiner, and Hunt
discloses all the limitations of claim 23, including that Gardiner’s paragraph
5 teaches “querying a user of the device for a display orientation preference
responsive to identifying the display orientation change event and responsive
to determining that the user context parameter is consistent with the first
1 Although the Examiner states claims 25 and 30 are “unpatentable over
Raffa in view of Gardiner, Hunt and Li” (Final Act. 2), we find this to be a
typographical error because the Examiner’s analysis discusses Mok, not Li.
Final Act. 5-6.
3
Appeal 2017-009863
Application 14/661,132
orientation.” Final Act. 3-5 (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend
Gardiner fails to teach the “querying” limitation of claim 23. App. Br. 4-5.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Gardiner describes the following with respect to changing the display
mode of a device display:
In some situations, the user of a portable device may not
want the display mode to change when the device is rotated.
For example, a user may start reading email messages or
playing a game while sitting upright, but may then decide to lie
down while continuing to use the device. The user does not
want the display mode to change in such a situation because the
relative orientation of the user’s eyes with respect to the display
screen has not changed. While a manual display mode
selection may be provided to override the inertial sensor, this is
an inconvenient solution to the problem.
Gardiner 5. Here, Gardiner identifies a problem and describes a prior
solution: “a manual display mode selection.” We agree with Appellants that
the manual override of a display mode change does not teach “querying a
user of the device for a display orientation preference,” let alone that such
querying is “responsive to identifying the display orientation change event
and responsive to determining that the user context parameter is consistent
with the first orientation,” as recited in claim 23. See App. Br. 4-5
(emphasis omitted). Nothing in Gardiner’s paragraph 5 suggests that
making a manual display mode selection involves querying the user, as
opposed to the user taking the initiative to make the selection.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 23, independent claim 28 which recites
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 24-27 and 29-32.
4
Appeal 2017-009863
Application 14/661,132
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 23-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23-32.
REVERSED
5