Ex Parte Cha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

14098047 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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.
14/098,047 12/05/2013 Soon-Hyun Cha SP12283-US
(SAMS06-12283)
3142
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DAT!.AS, TX 75380
EXAMINER
OSORIO, RICARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
patents @ munckwilson. com
munckwilson @ gmail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SOON-HYUN CHA, MYUNG-SU KANG, JUNG-WOO LEE,
JAE-WAN CHO and SUN-MIN HWANG
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
twice rejecting claims 1—20, all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. We also enter a new ground of rejection as
to claims 1, 2, 5—8, and 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The present invention relates generally to “a method of displaying
contents and an electronic device for processing the same” (Spec. 12).
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for operating an electronic device, comprising:
in response to detecting that a display unit is deformed,
recognizing a location of at least a part of a user’s body;
detecting a visible display area on the deformed display
unit based on the recognition; and
displaying content on the visible display area,
wherein the visible display area comprises at least one
portion of the deformed display unit that is visible to the user.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1,2, 5—8, and 11—13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2012/0092363 Al,
Apr. 19, 2012).
R2. Claims 14—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Winkler et al. (US 8,947,382 B2, Feb. 3, 2015).
R3. Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Winkler.
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 14, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 102(e) over Winkler
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Winkler discloses “in
response detecting that the flexible display unit is bended, recognizing at
2
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
least part of user’s body; detecting which display area is visible to the user
based on the recognition; and moving at least part of the displayed content
on the visible display area,” as recited in claim 14 (emphases added)?
Appellants contend Winkler is directed towards “altering the data
based on a detected gaze direction,” but fails to teach “recognizing at least
part of the user’s body” or “detecting which display area is visible to the
user based on the recognition,” as claimed (App. Br. 15—16). Specifically,
Appellants argue “rotating the data based upon the detected gaze direction,
or moving the data on the display based upon the detected gaze direction” is
not “the same as detecting which display area is visible to the user based on
the recognition and moving at least part of the displayed content on the
visible area” (Reply Br. 6). We disagree with Appellants’ contentions.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Winkler teaches
recognizing at least part of a user’s body because Winkler’s gaze direction
and gaze cone teach at least “a recognition of the user’s eyes” (Ans. 3).
For example, Winkler discloses:
Turning to FIG. 14, the user 1301 is gazing at the wearable
electronic device 1300. The gaze detector of the wearable
electronic device is operable to detect a gaze direction 1401
associated with the user’s gaze. When this occurs, the control
circuit of the wearable electronic device 1300 is configured to
alter the presentation of data on the displays of the wearable
electronic device 1300 . . . Note that the display 1303 is the
display oriented closest to the user 1301, and is therefore the
most easily seen. Advantageously, embodiments of the
invention are able to present information to the user in response
to detected gaze direction 1401, which means that the users 1301
can easily view the information without twisting or turning the
wrist. . . Regardless of the determination method, when the gaze
detector is operable to determine the gaze cone 1402, the control
circuit can be configured to alter the presentation of data on the
3
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
display by presenting data on portions of the display disposed
only within the gaze cone 1402. This has been done in FIG. 14.
All of display 1303 and a portion of display 1331 are disposed
within the gaze cone 1402. Accordingly, these portions are
presenting data while other portions of the displays of the
wearable electronic device 1300 are turned OFF. There are, of
course, other ways in which the presentation of information can
be altered in response to detected gaze direction or detected gaze
cone. For example, the control circuit can be operable to alter
the presentation of the data by one of rotating the data based
upon the detected gaze direction, moving the data on the display
based upon the detected gaze direction, or combinations thereof
(Winkler col. 19,11. 11—16, 20—25, 37—43, 46—52, emphases added). In
other words, Winkler describes moving the data on the display based upon
the detected gaze direction of the user.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that
Winkler’s detecting a gaze direction associated with a user’s eyes, and
subsequently moving displayed data in response to the gaze direction, does
not describe “recognizing at least part of user’s body; detecting which
display area is visible to the user based on the recognition; and moving at
least part of the displayed content on the visible display area,” as recited in
claim 14. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Winkler’s
detection of a gaze direction describes the recognizing of a part of the user’s
body (the user’s eyes), as required by claim 14; and Winkler’s presentation
of information to the user in response to the detected gaze direction and
movement of the data on the display based on the detected gaze direction
describes detecting a display area visible based on the user’s gaze and
moving displayed content to the visible display area, as required by claim
14.
4
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of independent claim 14, as
well as commensurate independent claim 17 and dependent claims 15, 16,
and 18—20, not separately argued, is sustained (see App. Br. 16).
Rejection under § 102(e) over Kim
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Kim describes
“ . . . recognizing a location of at least part of a user’s body;
detecting a visible display area on the deformed display unit
based on the recognition; and displaying content on the visible
display area, wherein the visible display area comprises at least
one portion of the deformed display unit that is visible to the
user,
as recited in claim 1 (emphases added)?
Appellants contend Kim is directed towards “correcting an image
based on a determined viewing direction to be viewed as a planar image,”
and fails to describe “that the content is displayed on a visible display area
that comprises at least one portion of the deformed display unit visible to the
user” (App. Br. 12). Specifically, Appellants argue that Kim’s “apparatus
identifies a viewing direction or a determined direction does not mean that
the apparatus detects a visible display area on the deformed display unit
based on the recognition” (Rep. Br. 3—4).
Here, the Examiner finds that, in Kim, “the viewer’s eyes are being
recognized and a distorted image resulted from the flexible display bend is
corrected in view of this recognition and on the bending value” (Ans. 3)
teaches the above limitation. We disagree with the Examiner’s
interpretation.
5
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
The claim is directed towards “detecting a visible display area on the
deformed display unit based on the recognition” of a location of at least part
of a user’s body, and “the visible display area comprises at least one portion
of the deformed display unit that is visible to the user.” (Emphasis added).
Appellants’ Specification describes a visible display area as a “visible area”
determined by “obtaining information regarding a user’s eye direction and
determining the display area visible to at least one user’'' (Spec, || 14, 18)
(emphasis added). As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a
visible display area requires an area of the display unit that is visible to a
user.
Kim discloses:
[0085] In operation 1150, the apparatus 200 measures the
viewing position of a viewer.
[0086] Based on the viewing position of the viewer, the
apparatus 200 corrects a distorted image generated by the bent
shape to be viewed as a planar image in operation 1160.
[0087] In operation 1170, the apparatus 200 displays the
corrected image.
(Kim || 85—87, emphases added). In other words, Kim describes correcting
a distorted image, where the distortion is based on the bent shape and the
viewer’s position, and displaying the image having been corrected.
However, the Examiner has failed to provide persuasive evidence or
argument that Kim’s correction of a distorted image and display of the
corrected image considers, in order to display the corrected image, the
claimed visible display area of the display unit that is on the display unit and
comprises a portion of the display unit. Specifically, the Examiner has not
shown that Kim’s correction of a distorted image to provide a corrected
planar image from a viewer’s position describes “detecting a visible display
6
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
area on the deformed display unit based on the recognition; and displaying
content on the visible display area, wherein the visible display area
comprises at least one portion of the deformed display unit that is visible to
the us erf as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Kim anticipates
the aforementioned limitation as recited in independent claim 1 with
commensurate limitations in independent claims 7 and 13.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 1,2, 5—8, and 11—13 based on Kim.
Rejection under § 103(a) over Kim and Winkler
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that Winkler describes
“displaying respective different contents on a plurality of visible display
areas for different users based on each user’s eye direction or each user’s
position,” as recited in claim 4?
Appellants contend Winkler does not teach “a second user’s gaze” and
thereby does not teach “displaying respective different contents on a
plurality of visible display areas for different users based on each user’s eye
direction” (App. Br. 17). Appellants further argue there is no “incentive
from the prior art to make the proposed modifications” to combine Kim and
Winkler and that the “presently-claimed invention can be reached only
through the impermissible use of hindsight” (App. Br. 18). We disagree
with Appellants.
7
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Winkler clearly
teaches this limitation in Figure 16 (Ans. 4), and that the combination of
Winkler and Kim would be obvious “so that the control circuit can alter the
presentation of data by moving the data on the display depending on the
detected gaze direction in more than one display location or displays” (Final
Act. 6; see Winkler col. 19,11. 46—52).
First, we note that
[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made
and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner
takes into account knowledge disclosed in Winkler, and thus the rejection
clearly rests on a factual basis that was within the level of ordinary skill at
the time the claimed invention was made.
Winkler discloses:
In the illustrative embodiment, the user 1301 has programmed
the control circuit to be responsive to third parties. Accordingly,
when the second user 1601 approaches, the control circuit is
operable to detect the gaze direction 1602, and optionally a gaze
cone 1603 corresponding to the gaze direction 1602, from the
second user 1601. The control circuit can then alter the
presentation of data on the displays. In this example, the control
circuit does this by turning on display 1302.
(Winkler col. 20,11. 16—24; see Winkler Fig. 16). In other words, Winkler
describes altering the presentation of displayed data for a first and a second
user based on the first and second users’ respective gaze directions.
8
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that
Winkler does not teach displaying different contents on multiple display
areas for different users based on the users’ eye directions. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Winkler’s detection of a second user’s gaze
and altering the presentation of data displayed for the various users based on
the first and second users’ respective gaze directions teaches “displaying
respective different contents on a plurality of visible display areas for
different users based on each user’s eye direction or each user’s position,” as
recited in claim 4.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 4, as well as
commensurate claim 10, and claims 3 and 9, not separately argued, are also
sustained (see App. Br. 18).
New Ground of Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5—8, and 11—13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Although we find supra that Kim fails to anticipate claims 1,2, 5—8,
and 11—13, we find it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Kim with
Winkler to arrive at the claimed invention as set forth in independent claims
1, 7, and 13.
For example, Kim teaches correcting a distorted image, where the
distortion is based on the bent shape and the viewer’s position, and
displaying the image having been corrected (see Kim || 85—87). Winkler
teaches moving the data on the display based upon the detected gaze
direction of a user (see Winkler col. 19,11. 11—16, 20-25, 37-43, 46—52).
9
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
Thus, we find that the combined teachings of Kim and Winkler teach
the limitations recited in claim 1. Specifically, in Kim, the determination of a
viewer’s position for correct image display and the gaze direction indicating
a viewer’s position for image display, as taught in Winkler, teach
“recognizing a location of at least part of a user’s body,” as recited in claim
1. In addition, Winkler’s presentation of information to the user and
movement of the data in response to the detected gaze direction teaches
“detecting a visible display area on the deformed display unit based on the
recognition; and displaying content on the visible display area, wherein the
visible display area comprises at least one portion of the deformed display
unit that is visible to the user,” as recited in claim 1.
Because the Examiner did not cite Winkler with regards to
independent claims 1, 7, and 13, we modify the Examiner’s rejection for
independent claims 1, 7, and 13, to add the teachings Winkler, and make this
a new ground of rejection. We further adopt the Examiner’s uncontested
findings of fact as our own. In summary, we newly reject claims 1,2, 5—8,
and 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and
Winkler.
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the Appellants,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid
termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new
10
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an
amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which,
in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims,
appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing
must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity
the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in
entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds
upon which rehearing is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—8, and
11—13 over Kim.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims 14—20 over
Winkler.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, and 10
over Kim and Winkler.
Because we have entered a new ground of rejection against claims 1,
2, 5—8, and 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kim and Winkler, our
decision is not a final agency action.
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).
11
Appeal 2016-004701
Application 14/098,047
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R. $ 41.50(b)
12