Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12968628 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/968,628 12/15/2010
68103 7590 06/30/2016
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mu-Sul KIM
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0202-0481 2727
EXAMINER
HARRISON, CHANTE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte MU-SUL KIM
Appeal2014-006463
Application 12/968,628 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-13, 15, and 16. (Appeal Br. 8.)
Claims 3, 9, and 14 are cancelled. (Id. at 9, 10, 12.) We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellant's invention relates to automatically controlling the size of
display data on a portable terminal, specifically to expanding or reducing the
size of displayed text. (Spec. i-f2.) A controller determines a reference
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-006463
Application 12/968,628
eyesight based on user input or the distance between the portable terminal
and the user, and adjusts the size of the text accordingly. (Id. i-fi-132-37)
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for controlling a size of display data in a
portable terminal, the apparatus comprising:
an input unit for inputting information regarding a value
corresponding to reference eyesight of a user of the portable
terminal; and
a controller for automatically controlling the size of the
display data in the portable terminal according to the value
corresponding to the reference eyesight of the user of the portable
terminal,
wherein the value corresponding to the reference eyesight
of the user of the portable terminal is a numerical value.
,,_Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as anticipated by Wezowski et al. (US 7,591,558 B2; iss. Sep. 22,
2009). (Final Action 4--7.)
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wezowski. (Final Action 7-8.)
Issues
A: Did the Examiner err in finding W ezowski discloses an input unit
for inputting information regarding a value corresponding to a user's
reference eyesight, as in claim 1?
2
Appeal2014-006463
Application 12/968,628
B: Did the Examiner err in finding Wezowski discloses that the value
corresponding to the reference eyesight of the user of the portable terminal is
a numerical value, as in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
A: input unit for inputting information regarding a value
corresponding to reference eyesight of a user
Appellant argues that W ezowski does not disclose an input unit as
required by claim 1. (Appeal Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 2.) As Appellant argues,
Wezowski teaches a device which measures the distance between the user's
eyes and the terminal, and determines the size of the text displayed on the
terminal based on the measured distance. (Appeal Br. 4; Wezowski 6:59-
61.) Appellant argues that the measurement of this distance should not be
seen as disclosing an input device, because "the content displayed on the
portable device is automatically adjusted" with "no input in needed."
(Reply Br. 2; Appeal Br. 5---6.) Appellant argues that Wezowski only
discloses adjusting the scale of displayed content by changing the size of the
displayed content until the user of the terminal indicates that the current
scale is preferred by entering a command on the terminal. (Appeal Br. 4--6;
Reply Br. 2-3.) Appellant contends that while this command is arguably
input information, is the command does not disclose the input of a value that
corresponds to a reference eyesight of a user, "but is instead a simple
command to indicate that the text is comfortably viewable." (Appeal Br. 6;
Reply Br. 2-3.)
The Examiner finds both embodiments of the invention disclose the
claimed limitation. The Examiner finds the distance value
3
Appeal2014-006463
Application 12/968,628
"measured/ sensed" by the W ezowski device is input information, and that
the sensor which provides the data is the input device. (Final Action 3-5.)
Additionally, the Examiner finds, in the other embodiment, that a user
inputting a command to accept a current scale teaches user entry of a value.
(Id.)
We agree with the Examiner. While Appellant argues that sensing of
a distance is not user input by a user input device because it is automatic, we
find that "input device" is a broad term, which, when interpreted broadly and
reasonably in light of the Specification, includes the Wezowski sensor even
if, as suggested by Appellant, the input data from the sensor is obtained
automatically. Appellants have not presented persuasive evidence or
argument to support a narrowed interpretation of the claim term. Moreover,
claim 1 as recited, does not preclude the inputting of the information be
manual and not automatic. Appellant acknowledges W ezowski' s "eye
information gatherer 360" obtains information "correspond[ing] to a
distance between the device and the [user's] eyes" (Appeal Br. 6) and we
agree with the Examiner that W ezowski' s eye information gatherer as well
as Wezowski's proximity/distance sensor each disclose the recited input
devices.
Appellant further argues that any value obtained by the sensor
corresponds to a distance between the eyes and the device, and thus, is not
"information regarding a value corresponding to reference eyesight of a
user." (Id.) However, as the Examiner notes, the measured distance relates
to the user's reference eyesight. (Answer 7.) While Appellant argues that
the recited "measured distance" does not correspond to reference eyesight
4
Appeal2014-006463
Application 12/968,628
(Appeal Br. 6), Appellant's Specification specifically describes that such a
measured distance may be used as the reference eyesight. (Spec. i-f 37.)
Additionally, where a user enters an indication that displayed text is
readable, we agree with the Examiner that while "the user does not directly
enter a numeric value" the input corresponds to the user's eyesight. (Answer
7.) Wezowski indicates that the user's input in this embodiment "may
enable a user to customize device 200 to meet his/her visual capabilities"
and allow "a person with a visual disorder ... to increase the scale of
content more so than a person with perfect vision." (Wezowski 8:31-34.)
Thus we agree with the Examiner that both embodiments described in
W ezowski disclose the claimed input device.
B: wherein the value corresponding to the reference eyesight
of the user of the portable terminal is a numerical value
Appellant additionally argues that neither embodiment discussed in
W ezowski teaches or suggests a numerical value for the value corresponding
to the reference eyesight of the user. (Appeal Br. 5---6.) In the case where
distance is measured, Appellant argues "nowhere in the reference is it taught
or suggested that such value is a numerical value." (Id. at 6.) Wezowski
discloses that the distance sensor "measure[s] the distance to the eye and/or
head of a user" ( 4: 17-22); that scale of content "may be uniformly adjusted
based on distance" (6:61-7:3); and that the scale of content may "increase
continuously as the distance between the eye(s) and the device display
5
Appeal2014-006463
Application 12/968,628
increases" (7:56-62). Thus, we find Wezowski teaches a numerical
measurement of the distance.
Appellant also argues that the embodiment in which a user enters a
command when the size of the content is comfortably viewable does not
disclose the input of a numerical value corresponding to a reference eyesight
of the user. (Appeal Br. 6.) However, the claim requires not that the input
by the user be a numerical value, but that the input be "information
regarding a value corresponding to [the] reference eyesight of a user" and
that "the value ... is a numerical value." Thus, as discussed supra, the
user's input in this embodiment of W ezowski is also information regarding a
numerical value (the content scale adjustment) which corresponds to the
reference eyesight of a user.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 3 5 U.S. C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 1, and the rejection of claims 2, 5-8, 11-13, 15, and 16, not
separately argued with specificity. (Appeal Br. 11.)
For the same reasons, we affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of dependent claims 4 and 10, not argued separately. (Id.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-13,
15, and 16.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
6