Ex Parte Dearman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 9, 2017

13590750 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 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.
13/590,750 08/21/2012 David Alexander Dearman 042933/422036 1075
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
ONYEKABA, AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/11/2017 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 DAVID ALEXANDER DEARMAN and
VIDYA RAGHAVAN SETLUR
Appeal 2016-000494
Application 13/590,7501
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Nokia Technologies Oy as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000494
Application 13/590,750
Invention
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to the use of an active digital
bezel area on a display that allows for user interaction with content
presented within the bezel area. Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
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
processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
cause presentation of content within a bezel area
provided on a display,
receive touch input in the bezel area, wherein user
interaction with the content presented within the bezel area at a
location corresponding to a location of the touch input is
initially disabled;
determine whether a force component of the touch input
received in the bezel area exceeds a predetermined force
threshold; and
enable user interaction with the content presented within
the bezel area at the location corresponding to the location of
the touch input in response to a determination that the force
component of the touch input exceeds the predetermined force
threshold.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—7 and 9—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over King et al. (US 2009/0295753 Al; Dec. 3, 2009),
Blow et al. (US 2012/0032979 Al; Feb. 9, 2012), and Lu (US 7,012,595 B2;
Mar. 14, 2006). Final Act. 2-13, 15-19.
2
Appeal 2016-000494
Application 13/590,750
The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over King and Lu. Final Act. 13—15.
ANALYSIS
Issue: Do the Examiner’s findings show the combination of King,
Blow, and Lu teaches or suggests “cause presentation of content within a
bezel area provided on a display,” as recited in claim 1?
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that King’s use of designated
areas on a bezel that can be touched to initiate user controls such as menu
operations, cursor operations, and data entry operations teaches or suggests
causing presentation of content within a bezel area provided on a display.
Final Act. 3 (citing King || 49, 58, and Fig. 4); Ans. 3^4. Appellants
contend the Examiner erred because “King does not teach that the bezel area
can present content.” App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 1—2. We find
Appellants’ arguments persuasive.
The Specification’s Figure 7—which illustrates presentation of
content within a bezel area—is reproduced below.
3
Appeal 2016-000494
Application 13/590,750
160
50
The Specification’s Figure 7 illustrates an apparatus 50 having first
content 50 (a text message conversation) displayed in non-bezel area 140 of
display 100 and second content 160 (notification of an incoming call)
displayed in bezel area 130). Spec. 1 64.
As illustrated in Figure 7, presentation of content within a bezel area
means that the content is visually within the bezel area, rather than within a
non-bezel area. This contrasts with King’s disclosed display and bezel area,
which are illustrated in King’s Figure 4, reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2016-000494
Application 13/590,750
King’s Figure 4 illustrates electronic device 100 with display 110
having visual guides 180 along the perimeter of display 110 and adjacent to
bezel 120, which has touch designated areas 121. King || 57—58.
As Appellants correctly note, visual guides 180 are displayed in the
part of display 110 next to bezel 120, rather than part of bezel 120. App. Br.
6. Appellants acknowledge that graphics, words, or the like may be fixed
(e.g., through printing, etching, etc.) directly on bezel 120 to indicate
designated areas having controls that a user would typically use in any of the
possible modes or functionalities of device 100. Id. at 5 (citing King || 55—
56). However, we agree with Appellants that such permanent fixing of an
indication, as part of the bezel itself, does not fall within a reasonably broad
interpretation of the claimed causing presentation of content within a bezel
area. See Ans. 10; Spec. 1 64, Fig. 7. The Examiner does not rely on Blow
or Lu to cure the noted deficiency of King. Therefore, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner’s findings do not show that the combination of
5
Appeal 2016-000494
Application 13/590,750
King, Blow, and Lue teaches or suggests “cause presentation of content
within a bezel area provided on a display,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claim 1, and claims 2—20, which contain similar recitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
6