Ex Parte Karttunen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2015

10576536 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JUHA KARTTUNEN
____________

Appeal 2012-011773
Application 10/576,5361
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–3, 5–17, and 19–22. Claims 4 and 18 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. Br. 1.

Appeal 2012-011773
Application 10/576,536
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to improving the information
communication capability of a display unit of a portable device. Spec.,
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
- a display unit with information-indicating light units;
- a controller configured to define control commands on
the basis of a display unit application and an instantaneous view
shown in the display unit; and
- a light driver configured to control the information-
indicating light units based on the control commands, such that
the information-indicating light units are arranged to indicate
information concerning a display unit application object located
only outside a current view of the display unit so that there is
formed a visual stimulus that functions as an indication of how
the view shown on the display continues outside the view, in
the direction of the visual stimulus,
wherein the apparatus is a portable apparatus and the
light units are located around the display unit.
App. Br. Claims App’x ii.

THE EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5–15, 17, and 19–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoshiki (JP 2003-062268), Yokoi (US
4,542,903, Sept. 24, 1985) and Halo: Combat Evolved (User’s Manual),
Microsoft, 1315 (2001) (hereinafter “Halo”). Ans. 4–16.
Appeal 2012-011773
Application 10/576,536
3
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshiki, Yokoi, Halo, and Kawai (US 2004/0229691 A1,
Nov. 18, 2004). Ans. 16–17.

ISSUES
Does the Examiner err in citing Yokoi for the proposition that the
display in the gaming device of Yoshiki could be made portable?
Does the Examiner err in finding that Halo discloses “an indication of
how the view shown on the display continues outside the view,” as recited in
claim 1?

ANALYSIS
A. The Examiner’s Use of Yokoi in the Obviousness Combinations
Appellant argues that the type of device disclosed in Yoshiki—
namely, a pachinko machine—is not a “portable apparatus,” as recited in
claim 1. Br. 6–7 (citing Evidence Appendix). In view of this, Appellant
contends that the Examiner has not provided an adequate rationale for
combining Yoshiki and Yokoi, because “Yokoi fails to provide an overall
teaching to make all types of games portable.” Id. at 8–9. The Examiner
finds that Yokoi “indicate[s] that gaming devices can be made further
compact and that it is highly desirable to do so,” Ans. 18, and that “[t]he
suggestion/motivation” to combine Yoshiki and Yokoi “would have been to
provide a gaming device that is as compact as possible.” Id. at 6 (citing
Yokoi col. 1, ll. 10–16, 25–26). The Examiner also finds that nothing in
Yoshiki prevents “gaming devices of its nature” from being made portable.
Id. at 18.
Appeal 2012-011773
Application 10/576,536
4
We observe that the Examiner’s citation to Yoshiki pertains to the
display embedded in a pachinko machine and its surrounding lighting units,
rather than to all elements of a pachinko machine as a whole. See Ans. 5
(citing “lighting units 30 having LEDs 31 around the border of the display
screen” and various controllers for the same in Yoshiki); see also Yoshiki
¶ 1 (stating that Yoshiki relates to the “picture display part” at the center of a
pachinko machine). Furthermore, the Examiner properly relies on Yokoi,
rather than Yoshiki, to teach or suggest “a compact portable gaming device.”
Ans. 5 (citing Yokoi Abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 3, 8, 20 & 21). Thus, Appellant’s
arguments about the alleged non-portability of a pachinko machine are
unpersuasive.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have found in Yokoi a reason to “reduce the size of the
display and proportionally the lighting units as shown in Fig. 14 of Yoshiki
to that of a portable size” in order to “provid[e] a very compact solution . . .
to maximize . . . ease of use . . . .” Ans. 18. We additionally observe that
both Yoshiki and Yokoi relate to gaming devices with displays, so these
references share a common application. For these reasons, Appellant has not
persuaded us of error in Examiner’s rationale for combining Yoshiki and
Yokoi.

B. The Examiner’s Use of Halo in the Obviousness Combinations
Appellant also questions the propriety of the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 with respect to the following limitations:
a display unit with information-indicating light units;
Appeal 2012-011773
Application 10/576,536
5
. . .
. . . the information-indicating light units [being]
arranged to indicate information concerning a display unit
application object located only outside a current view of the
display unit so that there is formed a visual stimulus that
functions as an indication of how the view shown on the display
continues outside the view, in the direction of the visual
stimulus . . . .
Br. 7–8. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Halo as teaching “large
red warning indicators [I] at the edges of the screen referred to as Direction
of Fire Indicators to inform the user of danger which is not currently
visible.” Ans. 10.
Appellant argues that Halo’s warning indicator “is in the display
itself” rather than being separate information-indicating light units. Br. 8
(emphasis omitted). But the Examiner relies on Yoshiki, not Halo, for the
disclosure of the recited information-indicating light units. Ans. 19 (citing
Yoshiki Figs. 2, 4–7, 14–17 for the proposition of “a display unit with
information-indicating light units located around the display”); see also Ans.
19–20 (“Halo’s indicators . . . were not cited as disclosing the lighting units
that Yoshiki already disclosed.”). Accordingly, Appellant’s argument
regarding Halo’s purported lack of disclosure on information-indicating light
units is unpersuasive.
Appellant also argues that, because the warning indicator of Halo “is
actually an arrow drawn on the display screen,” such an indicator “does not
correspond to any information-indicating light unit that could be around the
display . . . .” Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Yet the Examiner cites Halo as
teaching that “a gaming system . . . with indications at the edges of the
Appeal 2012-011773
Application 10/576,536
6
display of objects located only outside the current view of the display . . . .”
Ans. 19 (citing Halo 13, 15). The Examiner finds that these visual
indications are the recited “visual stimulus that functions as an indication of
how the view shown on the display continues outside the view, in the
direction of the visual stimulus” of claim 1. Id. Based on this analysis, we
agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that “one or ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the lighting units of Yoshiki in view of Halo would
provide the ability to warn of any visual stimulus approaching of which the
user should be made aware.” Id. at 20.
Appellant also argues that “the examiner has not shown why the
ordinarily skilled person would have added the information-indication lights
surrounding the display,” particularly with regard to the directional
indication of a visual stimulus. Br. 9–11 (emphasis omitted). Specifically,
Appellant argues that Halo’s “Direction of Fire indicator merely allows a
player of the game determine a direction after receiving enemy fire” such
that the indicator “merely provides some additional information for
something already displayed on the screen.” Br. 10.
We agree with the Examiner that it does not matter “[w]hether the
received bullets are on-screen” in the Halo game, because this “does not
negate the fact that the threatening enemies firing those projectiles are still
off-screen in the direction shown and are a non-visible threat.” Ans. 21. In
this way, “Halo’s indicators not only show that the map [display] extends in
that direction (otherwise enemies could not exist there to fire the projectiles)
but also serve to prove that the enemies themselves exist outside the visible
area.” Ans. 22. Halo’s indicators thus provide the requisite teaching of “an
indication of how the view shown on the display continues outside the
Appeal 2012-011773
Application 10/576,536
7
view,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s use of Halo in combination with Yoshiki.

C. Conclusion
For the reasons in sections A and B above, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Yoshiki, Yokoi, and Halo. We therefore sustain this rejection. Because
Appellant repeats the same or similar arguments for independent claims 9
and 19, see Br. 12–26, we sustain the rejections of these claims for the same
reasons. Appellant does not present separate arguments for the dependent
claims, see Br. 12, 19, 26, so we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 2, 3, 5–8, 10–17, and 20–22.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 5–17, and 19–22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED

llw