Ex Parte KIM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

14946331 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/946,331 11/19/2015
68103 7590 07/27/2018
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Byoung Ju 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.
0203-1061-2 9770
EXAMINER
WANG, JIN CHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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 BYOUNG JU KIM, TAE KYUNG KIM, and TAE WON UM
Appeal 2017-011245
Application 14/946,331 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-011245
Application 14/946,331
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention generally relates to "a portable
electronic device and, in particular, to a display mode switching device and
method for a portable electronic device that is capable of switching the
display mode between a portrait mode and a landscape mode according to a
posture or orientation of the portable electronic device." Spec. ,r 6.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A display method of an electronic device, the method
compnsmg:
detecting an orientation of the electronic device;
displaying, on a single display screen of the electronic
device,
an input region configured to display a plurality of
virtual keys according to one of a first key map
corresponding to a first orientation of the electronic
device and a second key map corresponding to a second
orientation of the electronic device, in response to the
detected orientation of the electronic device, and
an output region configured to display characters
input via the virtual keys;
changing, when the orientation of the electronic device
switches from the first orientation to the second orientation, an
arrangement of the plurality of virtual keys according to the
second key map including a left-side group of virtual keys and a
right-side group of virtual keys that are respectively arranged at
left and right sides of the single display screen; and
changing, when the orientation of the electronic device
switches from the second orientation to the first orientation, the
arrangement of the plurality of virtual keys according to the
first key map.
2
Appeal 2017-011245
Application 14/946,331
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Lundy (US 2009/0247112 Al, Oct. 1, 2009), Kida (US 2009/0225041
Al, Sept. 10, 2009), Bloomcamp (US 2009/0237364 Al, Sept. 24, 2009),
Cybart (US 2008/0204418 Al, Aug. 28, 2008), Williamson (US
2008/0165148 Al, July 10, 2008), Jobs (US 2008/0122796 Al, May 29,
2008), Eng (US 2008/0167081 Al, July 10, 2008), Yorio (US 2005/0243069
Al, Nov. 3, 2005), Platzer (US 2009/0186659 Al, July 23, 2009), Mosby
(US 2009/0237361 Al, Sept. 24, 2009), and Pallakoff (US 2009/0303187
Al, Dec. 10, 2009). Final Act. 10-29.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
Appellants argue the references "fail to disclose that the position and
arrangement of the key map are changed in split form in the landscape
orientation in the case where there is a switch from a portrait to a landscape
orientation." Br. 10-11. As an example, Appellants point to Mosby and
argue that it
fails to disclose "changing, when the orientation of the
electronic device switches from the first orientation to the
second orientation, an arrangement of the plurality of virtual
keys according to the second key map including a left-side
group of virtual keys and a right-side group of virtual keys that
are respectively arranged at left and right sides of the single
display screen," as recited in claim 1.
Br. 11.
The Examiner responds that the claims do not require a "split form"
key map in landscape mode. Ans. 4--5. Instead the Examiner interprets the
claims such that keys found on the left of a keyboard may be considered as
3
Appeal 2017-011245
Application 14/946,331
part of the claimed "left-side group" of virtual keys and keys found on the
right of the keyboard may be considered as part of the "right-side group" of
virtual keys. Ans. 6 (citing Figs. 3A-3C). Under this interpretation, the
Examiner finds Lundy and Bloomcamp teach the disputed limitation of
changing an arrangement of keys according to the second key map including
a left-side group of virtual keys and a right-side group of virtual keys that
are respectively arranged at left and right sides of the single display screen
when the orientation of an electronic device changes from a first orientation
to a second orientation. Ans. 7-9 (citing Lundy, Figs. 4A-D, ,r,r 77, 118;
Bloomcamp, Figs. 5-7)
We agree with the Examiner and are unpersuaded by Appellants'
arguments. Initially, we note the claims do not recite a "split form" key map
or a split keyboard, but rather a "key map including a left-side group of
virtual keys and a right-side group of virtual keys that are respectively
arranged at left and right sides of the single display screen." Lundy and
Bloomcamp both teach a portrait mode and a landscape mode for their
respective electronic devices and that the mode changes from one to the
other depending on the orientation of the device. See Lundy, Figs. 4A--4D,
,r,r 77, 118; Bloomcamp, Figs. 6-7, ,r,r 61---64. Lundy and Bloomcamp also
teach an arrangement of virtual keys on a keyboard with a group of keys
arranged at the left side of the screen and a group of keys arranged at the
right side of the screen in the landscape orientation. See Lundy, Figs. 4C-
4 D; Bloomcamp, Fig. 7. We find these disclosures sufficient to teach the
disputed limitation. Appellants' argument regarding Mosby fails to address
the Examiner's aforementioned findings regarding Lundy and Bloomcamp.
Appellants next argue:
4
Appeal 2017-011245
Application 14/946,331
the alleged combination of LUNDY, KIDA, BLOOM CAMP,
CYBART, WILLIAMSON, JOBS, ENG, YORIO, PLATZER,
MOSBY, and P ALLAKOFF fails to disclose or render obvious
the presently claimed combination of features recited in
independent claim 1 because the Examiner has not provided a
logical, valid reason to modify and/or combine the various
disclosures of LUNDY, KIDA, BLOOMCAMP, CYBART,
WILLIAMSON, JOBS, ENG, YORIO, PLATZER, MOSBY,
and PALLAKOFF, with the resulting combination of which
corresponding to the claimed invention.
Br. 9--10. Appellants further argue:
Br. 8.
In cases where the TSM test is not applied, Appellant[ s] assert[]
that the number of references combined to make an obviousness
rejection are indicative of whether the Examiner has relied upon
impermissible hindsight and thus should be considered as a
factor to determine the use of impermissible hindsight by the
Examiner.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. Appellants do not identify,
nor do we know of, any case law holding that the number of prior art
references used in a rejection necessarily indicates the Examiner relied upon
impermissible hindsight. Instead the Examiner's reason to combine the prior
art must be evaluated on its own merits. To support a finding of obviousness
the Examiner must provide "articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning" for combining known elements in the manner required by the
claim. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (citing In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, we find the Examiner has
articulated a rational reason for combining the teachings of Lundy and
Bloomcamp. For example, the Examiner explains that Lundy and
Bloomcamp disclose a first key map in a portrait mode and a second key
map in a landscape mode. Final Act. 17. The Examiner further explains that
5
Appeal 2017-011245
Application 14/946,331
one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to change from one key
arrangement to the other in response to a change in the electronic device's
orientation to make use of the size and dimensions of the display in these
respective orientations. See Final Act. 17-18 (explaining that Lundy and
Bloomcamp teach that in portrait orientation only a few larger keys would
be displayed and in landscape orientation a greater number of smaller keys
would be displayed); Ans. 9-10.
Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is
sustained. Appellants rely on the same arguments for independent claim 7
and make no arguments for separate patentability of dependent claims 2-6
and 8-12. See Br. 11-12. Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, we
also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-12.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and recites
wherein the output region is substantially displayed across an
entire first width of the single display screen when the detected
orientation of the electronic device is the first orientation, and
the output region is substantially displayed across an entire
second width of the single display screen when the detected
orientation of the electronic device is the second orientation.
The Examiner finds Williamson and Jobs teach this limitation. Final Act.
28-29 (citing Williamson, Figs. 51, 5M; Jobs, Figs. 391, 39M); see also Ans.
14--16 (citing Williamson, Figs. 5B, 51, 5M; Jobs, Figs. 18H, 34C, 39H, I, J,
M). Appellants argue Williamson does not disclose that the output region
in Williamson's Figure 5M is substantially displayed across an entire second
width of the single display screen in the second orientation. Br. 14.
Appellants assert the URL box shown in Figure 5M of Williamson "only
extends across a portion of the width of the single display" and the "empty
6
Appeal 2017-011245
Application 14/946,331
box between the URL entry box 3908 and the input region including the
keys is not an output region as recited [in] claim 13 because it does not
display characters input via the virtual keys." Br. 14.
Appellants' argument that Williamson's URL entry box does not
disclose an output region that is "substantially displayed across an entire
second width of the single display screen" because it "only extends across a
portion of the width" (Br. 14) of the screen is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim which does not preclude the output region from extending
across only a portion of the width of the screen. Appellants do not
persuasively explain why the URL entry box, which is depicted as extending
more than half of the width of the screen, is not substantially displayed
across the width of the screen.
Additionally, we note Williamson and Jobs show output regions
displayed almost entirely across the width of a display screen when the
device is in a first orientation, i.e. portrait mode. See Williamson, Fig. 51;
Jobs, Fig. 18H, 39I. Williamson and Jobs also show that the format of the
screens may change when the orientation of the device changes from portrait
mode to landscape mode, including the format of the output regions, such as
the URL entry box. See Jobs, Fig. 39M. One of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to arrange the output region to be displayed
across substantially the entire width of the screen in landscape mode as
Williamson and Jobs show the output regions may be substantially displayed
across and entire first width of a display screen in portrait mode. Figure 39L
of Jobs shows the URL entry box extending a larger width of the screen than
Figure 39M, thus, teaching that the width of output regions is variable and
that changing their width would be within the knowledge and skill of the
7
Appeal 2017-011245
Application 14/946,331
ordinary artisan. Therefore, the evidence shows that adjusting the width of
the output box to be substantially displayed across the width of the screen
was not "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art"
or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc.
v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418-19).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. We
also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 for which Appellants rely
on the same arguments. See Br. 16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8