Ex Parte KIM et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 20, 201913734425 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/734,425 01/04/2013 68103 7590 05/22/2019 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. 0203-1061-1 3637 EXAMINER WANG, JIN CHENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2019 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 Ex parte BYOUNG JU KIM, TAE KYUNG KIM, and TAE WON UM Appeal2018-000571 Application 13/734,425 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, 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, 2, 7-10, 12, 13, 18-21, 23, 25-28, 31-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2018-000571 Application 13/734,425 BACKGROUND THE INVENTION Appellants describe the invention as follows: The present application relates to a display mode switching device and method for a portable electronic device. In particular, the present application relates to a portable electronic device that can switch display modes of an integrated display and input device to facilitate composition of a text message by switching between a portrait mode and a landscape mode. A portable electronic device may use a display mode switching method in which a posture of the portable electronic device can be checked, and a display mode can be selected based on the posture. A portrait-mode text messaging composition window with a portrait-mode key map and a landscape-mode text messaging composition window with a landscape-mode key map can be displayed in the selected display mode. Abstract. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A display method of an electronic device, comprising: displaying, on a single display screen: an input region configured to display a virtual key pad including a plurality of virtual numeric keys and virtual functional keys, and an output region configured to display numeric input via the virtual key pad; detecting an orientation of the electronic device via an orientation sensor; and displaying, on the single display screen and according to a change in the detected orientation of the electronic device from a first orientation to a second orientation, both: the input region configured to display the virtual key pad with resized smaller virtual keys, such that each of the virtual keys of the virtual key pad is resized with a smaller font size, and 2 Appeal2018-000571 Application 13/734,425 the output region configured to display a numeric with a resized smaller font size, that is input via the virtual key pad, wherein a number of virtual functional keys of the virtual keypad is increased in response to the detected orientation of the electronic device being changed from the first orientation to the second orientation, and a number of virtual functional keys of the virtual keypad is decreased in response to the detected orientation of the electronic device being changed from the second orientation to the first orientation, and wherein the first orientation corresponds to a portrait orientation, and the second orientation corresponds to a landscape orientation. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 13, 18-21, 23, and 31-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 '570 (US 2008/0174570 Al, July 24, 2008), Jobs '796 (US 2008/0122796 Al, May 29, 2008), Eng (US 2008/0167081 Al, July 10, 2008), Yorio (US 2005/0243069 Al, Nov. 3, 2005), and Platzer (US 2009/0186659 Al; July 23, 2009). Final Act. 12-35. 2. Claims 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lundy, Kida, Bloomcamp, Cybart, Williamson, Jobs '570, Jobs '796, Eng, Yorio, Platzer, and Ladouceur (US 2009/0195959 Al; Aug. 6, 2009). Final Act. 35-38. 3 Appeal2018-000571 Application 13/734,425 DISCUSSION Claim 1 recites "displaying ... according to a change in the detected orientation of the electronic device from a first orientation to a second orientation ... the virtual key pad with resized smaller virtual keys, such that each of the virtual keys of the virtual key pad is resized with a smaller font size." The Examiner finds Bloomcamp and Yorio teach or suggest resizing each of the virtual keys to a smaller size when the orientation of the device is changed. Final Act. 16-17 ( citing Bloomcamp, Figs. 6, 7; Yorio, Figs. 1, 2). Specifically, the Examiner finds Bloomcamp's Figures 6 and 7 show a change in the orientation of the depicted device from portrait orientation (Figure 6) to landscape orientation (Figure 7) and that the "size of the numeric keys in FIG. 7 is smaller than the size of the numeric keys in FIG. 6." Final Act. 16. Appellants argue 1 the cited references do not teach or suggest a keypad with resized smaller virtual keys. Br. 11-16. We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner makes the determination that the keys in Figure 6 of Bloomcamp are larger than the keys in Figure 7 of Bloomcamp based on a visual analysis of the Figures themselves. For example, the Examiner notes that the size of the device is the same in both figures but the "sizes of the numeric keys in FIG. 6 are larger than the sizes of the numeric keys in FIG. 7." Ans. 3. To support this finding, the Examiner superimposed a key from Figure 6 of Bloomcamp onto its counterpart in Figure 7 and found that "the size of a numeric key in FIG. 6 is slightly larger than the size of the corresponding numeric key in 1 Appellants present additional arguments in their Appeal Brief. However, because the identified argument is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the merits of these additional arguments. 4 Appeal2018-000571 Application 13/734,425 FIG. 7." Ans. 3-4. The Examiner, thus, relied upon visual comparison of the figures, keys, and fonts in making the determination regarding the sizes of the elements depicted. Ans. 4. When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'!, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.") We find this is the case here. Although the Examiner states "the mobile device 100 of Bloomcamp in FIG. 6 and the mobile device 100 of Bloomcamp in FIG. 7 refer to the same mobile device and are drawn to the same scale and in the same proportion to the actual dimension of the mobile device" (Ans. 5), the Examiner does not provide any support for this finding and we can discern no such teaching in Bloomcamp about the scale of the figures depicted. Without an indication of the scale or dimensions of the drawings of Bloomcamp, the drawings alone, even when carefully compared with each other, are of little probative value regarding the absolute or relative sizes of the elements depicted therein. Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, nor of independent claims 12 and 23, which were rejected on the same basis. See Final Act. 12-26. The dependent claims fall with their respective independent claims. 5 Appeal2018-000571 Application 13/734,425 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 13, 18-21, 23, 25- 28, and 31-34 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation