Ex Parte Grant

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12459083 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
12/459,083 06/26/2009 Silas J. Grant 800.0431.U1(US) 1182
10948 7590 03/01/2017
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
XIAO, DI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
USPTO@hspatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SILAS J. GRANT
Appeal 2016-007869
Application 12/459,083
Technology Center 2100
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—8, 10, 11, 17, 19, 21—23, and 26—29. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-007869
Application 12/459,083
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns a “user interface that
automatically controls movement of an item in a display.” Spec. 1:6—8.
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a display having a contoured surface, said contoured
surface being a permanent physical characteristic of said display,
said contoured surface including one or more areas having a
curved cross section;
one or more processors; and
one or more memories including computer program code,
the one or more memories and the computer program code
configured, with the one or more processors, to cause the
apparatus to perform the following:
divide the display into one or more areas of stability and
one or more areas of instability, said one or more areas of
instability corresponding to areas of said contoured surface
having a curved cross section;
control movement of a user movable item in the display in
response to user input when the user movable item is located
within an area of stability; and
control movement of the user movable item in the display
automatically towards an area of stability without user input
when the item is located within an area of instability.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—8, 10, 11, 17, 19, 22, 23, and 26—29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kruger et al. (US 2007/0094177 Al;
Apr. 26, 2007), Mouilleseaux et al. (US 2009/0327955 Al; Dec. 31, 2009),
and Rawley et al. (US 2011/0191674 Al; Aug. 4, 2011).
2
Appeal 2016-007869
Application 12/459,083
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kruger, Mouilleseaux, Rawley, and Actual Tools, Organize Your
Desktop in a Neat Way!, http://www.actualtools.com/articles/detail.php?!
D=1124 (Jan. 2007).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erroneously found Kruger teaches or
suggests “a display having a contoured surface, said contoured surface being
a permanent physical characteristic of said display” as recited in claim 1 and
similar limitations recited in independent claims 26—28. See App. Br. 4—8;
Reply 2—9. According to Appellant, Kruger teaches a virtual interface, not
“a display having a contoured surface,” the surface “being a permanent
physical characteristic of said display” as required by the claims. See App.
Br. 4—8; Reply 2—9.
The Examiner concluded the claim terms “display,” “contoured
surface,” and “permanent physical characteristic” each encompasses virtual
displays. See Ans. 4—6. Based on these constructions, the Examiner found
Kruger discloses a virtual mountain range on a user interface that teaches or
suggests the “display” recited in the claims. See Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 4—6.
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
erred.
With respect to “display,” the Examiner found the term “is usually
interpret[ed] as [a] virtual display as part of the interface,” while “a display
device or display panel is usually . . . used to describe a physical display.”
Ans. 4. The Examiner also found the written description states “[a] user
interface may comprise a display configured to display a user moveable
item.” Id. Based on these findings, the Examiner interpreted “display” “as a
3
Appeal 2016-007869
Application 12/459,083
virtual display that is part of the user interface.” Id. However, the Examiner
has not provided any evidence to support the finding that “display” “is
usually interpret[ed] as [a] virtual display as part of the interface,” while “a
display device or display panel is usually . . . used to describe a physical
display.” Id. Technical dictionaries indicate that one of skill in the art
would have understood “display” to refer to a physical display device, not a
virtual one. For example, the Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines
“display” as “[t]he visual output device of a computer, which is commonly a
CRT-based video display. With portable and notebook computers, the
display is usually an LCD-based or a gas plasma—based.” Display,
Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002).
Moreover, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, the written description
indicates that “display” refers to a physical device. The written description
repeatedly describes an apparatus that includes a display and discloses that
the display can contain a touch sensitive input. Spec. 1:19 (“an apparatus
comprising: a display”), 5:27 (“an apparatus 2 comprising: a display 4”),
6:2—3 (“The apparatus 2 in this example comprises a display 4”), 6:10-11
(“The display 4 may be touch sensitive, in which case the user input 8 may
be integrated into the display.”), Fig. 1 (depicting apparatus components,
including a display). The written description also discloses that a controller
creates “correspondence between the physical regions of the display 4 and
the logical areas” and includes a table mapping each “physical region of the
display” to a “logical area of the display.” Id. at 11:34—12:15; see also id. at
14:1—8 (discussing a second table mapping physical display regions to
logical display areas). The written description describes this correspondence
as causing automatic movement of an item “from the physical contours of
4
Appeal 2016-007869
Application 12/459,083
the display.” Id. at 12:11—12; see also Fig. 4 (depicting a physical display
surface). Finally, the written description discloses that first and second
portions of a display “are hinged for relative rotational movement at [a]
joint” or are “mounted for relative movement.” Id. at 2:14—15, 12:24—25
(emphases added) (reference numbers omitted).
In light of these disclosures, one of skill in the art would understand
the term “display” to refer to a physical device. One of skill in the art would
also understand the terms “contoured surface” and “permanent physical
characteristic” to refer to the contoured surface of the physical display and a
permanent physical characteristic of the physical display, respectively. The
independent claims each recite a “display having a contoured surface, said
contoured surface being a permanent physical characteristic of said display.”
App. Br. 10; see also id. at 13—14. Because “display” refers to a physical
device, the “contoured surface” of the display is also physical, as is the
“permanent physical characteristic of said display.”
Moreover, the Examiner has not identified anything in the written
description that suggests “permanent physical characteristic” or “contoured
surface” encompass virtual displays. The Examiner found the “permanent
physical characteristic” described in the written description “is that objects
have a tendency to move from high ground to low ground” and that “[tjhese
objects are clearly described as virtual objects.” Ans. 4—5 (citing Spec.
11:1—12). But the “permanent physical characteristic” described in the cited
portion of the written description is a characteristic of the display, not the
virtual object. See Spec. 11:1—3 (“[T]he display may have a first display
area having a first physical characteristic and a second display area having a
second physical characteristic.” (reference numbers omitted) (emphasis
5
Appeal 2016-007869
Application 12/459,083
added)). As for the term “contoured surface,” the cited portions of the
written description say nothing about the surface being virtual. Rather, the
cited portions note that the controller can make items move as if the items
were rolling along the surface of the display. See id. at 2:14—16, 11:9—12.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
independent claims 1 and 26—28 and the rejections of their respective
dependent claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejections of claims 1—8, 10, 11,
17, 19, 21-23, and 26-29.
REVERSED
6