Ex Parte Kotzin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2005

10331384 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2005)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte MICHAEL KOTZIN
________________
Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before THOMAS, RUGGIERO and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 20. For the reasons stated infra we reverse the examiner’s
rejection of these claims.
Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
2
The Invention
The invention relates to a hand held display device which operates such that
moving the display back and forth, in conjunction with the user’s “persistence of vision”
makes the image appear to be larger than the size of the display. The display device
has a memory with an image, which has an image size larger than the display size. The
display device has a motion sensor and instructions, which determine the position of the
display and display a portion of the image that corresponds to the position of the
display. See page 3 of appellant’s specification. The instructions also cause the image
on the display to be panned by an amount that matches the movement of the hand held
display. See page 4 of appellant’s specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A display circuit for use in a hand held device, comprising:
a display having a predetermined size;
a memory including information relating to an image having an image
size, which is larger than the size of the display;
a motion sensor for detecting the movement of the hand held device
and the corresponding movement of the display; and
a controller, coupled to the motion sensor, including prestored
instructions for determining the current position of the hand held device and for
displaying a portion of the image on the display, corresponding to the present
position of the device, wherein the amount the image being displayed on the
display is panned matches the amount of movement of the hand held device.
Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
3
References
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Berting et al. (Berting) 4,393,379 July 12, 1983
Feinstein 6,466,198 October 15, 2002
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 through 8, 10 through 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Feinstein. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Feinstein in view of Berting.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied
upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellant’s arguments set forth in the
briefs, along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer. With full consideration being given to the
subject matter on appeal, the examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and
examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 8, 10 through 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the examiner’s
rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues on page 5 of the brief that the examiner, in using the definition
“a person or thing equal to or similar to another,” is applying the wrong definition of the
Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
4
term “matching” in interpreting the limitation of claim 1. Appellant asserts that a more
suitable definition is “one that is like another in one or more specified quantities.”
Further appellant argues:
Notwithstanding the fact that the examiner ignores the portion of the
definition for "match'', which includes the phrase "equal to", more importantly the
Examiner fails to show or assert that a match exists between the elements being
claimed as matching. Specifically, the Examiner merely notes a similarity
between orientation and movement of the device relative to the amount of
panning on the screen, which is different than showing a match exists between
the amount of movement of the device and the amount of panning of the image
being displayed on the display. While the direction of movement of the device
may be similar to the direction of panning of the image being presented on the
display, the amount of movement of the device and the amount of panning of the
image being displayed do not match, as provided for in the claims. In fact
Feinstein, ‘198, expressly suggests that any exact correlation between
orientation changes and actual navigation of the display should be minimized
(col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 2).
Further, on page 3 of the reply brief, appellant argues:
Any attempt to relate an image displacement, of the type associated with
panning, with an angular change, of the type associated with a change in
orientation of the device, is akin to comparing apples and oranges. There is no
formula taught or suggested for translating between an amount of change in
orientation associated with an angle, which can be measured in radians or
degrees, and an amount of panning or image displacement, which in the case of
a planer display would involve a lateral displacement that can be measured in
inches or centimeters. In view of this very fundamental difference, the reference
can not be said to involve an amount of movement of a hand held device, which
can be said to reasonably compare to an amount of panning, let alone teach and
require corresponding amounts that match.
In response the examiner states, on page 5 of the answer, that appellant’s
proposed definition is broader than that proposed by the examiner and that it shows that
“equal” is not a requirement to being a match. Further, the examiner states “[i]t is also
noted that in [sic] the specification does not specify that the amounts of movement be
Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
5
equal to and the only alternative form of the word ‘matches’ is ‘corresponding to’ found
on page 10, line 1.” The examiner asserts that Feinstein discloses this correspondence
between movement of the device and panning of the display in figures 1A through 1D
and the corresponding description.
We agree with the examiner’s interpretation of the term “match” and find that it
does not require that the matching terms be equal, but rather it requires some
correspondence between terms. However, we disagree with the examiner’s finding that
Feinstein teaches the limitation “wherein the amount the image being displayed on the
display is panned matches the amount of movement of the hand held device” as recited
in claim 1. We find that this limitation of claim 1 requires not only that there be a
correspondence between panning of the image and the movement of the display, but
also that there is a correspondence between the “amount”, some measurable quantity,
of movement and the “amount” of panning. Independent claim 11 contains a similar
limitation.
Feinstein teaches a hand held device which has a navigation mode which allows
the user of the device to scroll the display. See column 5, lines 35-39. In the navigation
mode, changes in pitch and roll orientation of the device provide the commands to the
device to scroll the display, i.e. a person holding the display rocks the display in the
direction the user desires to scroll the display. See column 7, lines 40-48 and figures
1A through 1D. Feinstein teaches several scroll speeds: fixed, fine, course, and
dynamically changing between fine and course, these speeds respectively correspond
to sections 144, 152, 156 and 154 of figure 7A. See column 8, lines 6-14, 21-28, 41-50.
Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
6
The speeds are selected by the user. See column 9, lines 23-32. However, we do not
find that Feinstein teaches that the amount of movement of the display device controls
the amount of panning, scrolling speed, of the display, i.e. the magnitude of the pitch
and roll does not affect the scroll speed. See for example figure 7C which depicts
change in orientation of the display device and figure 7D which depicts scrolling of the
display. We note scrolling is independent of the magnitude of change in orientation of
the device. Thus, we do not find that Feinstein teaches the limitation of an “amount the
image being displayed on the display is panned matches the amount of movement of
the hand held device.” Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11 or dependent claims 2 through 8, 10, 12 through 18 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Feinstein in view of Berting. Claims 9 and 19 ultimately depend upon claims 1 and
11 respectively. The examiner has not asserted, nor do we find, that Berting teaches
the limitation of an “amount the image being displayed on the display is panned
matches the amount of movement of the hand held device.” Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 19 for the reasons discussed supra with
respect to claims 1 and 11.
Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
RN/rwk

Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
8
MOTOROLA INC
600 NORTH US HIGHWAY 45
ROOM AS437
LIBERTYVILLE, IL 60048-5343