Ex Parte Leonard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

13733172 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/733, 172 01/03/2013
7590
Stephen W. Leonard
102 Emmeloord Cres.
Unionville, ON L3RIP8
CANADA
05/31/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen Wesley Leonard
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.
1030
EXAMINER
BALAOING, ARIEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN WESLEY LEONARD
Appeal2018-000175
Application 13/733, 172
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, HUNG H. BUI, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which are all the claims pending
in the application. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
WeAFFIRM. 1
1 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed October 31,
2016; Correction to Appellant's Brief filed December 16, 2016; Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed July 26, 2017; Final Office Action ("Final Act.")
mailed May 31, 2016; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed January 3,
2013.
Appeal2018-000175
Application 13/733, 172
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "methods and devices [shown in
Figure 1] for controlling display in response to [1] device orientation and [2]
ambient light levels." Spec. Title ( emphasis omitted). Appellant's Figure 1
is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration.
100
150 ···--
PHOTOSENSOR
\ PHOTOS.ENSOR
145
- us
Figure 1 shows mobile device 100 including one or more orientation
sensors (not shown) and a plurality of photo-sensors 125, 135, 145, 155.
As shown in Figure 1, display device 100 includes one or more
orientation sensors (shown in Figure 2) for determining an orientation of the
display device 100 with respect to gravity (i.e., when device 100 is rotated
clockwise at 90°); and a plurality of ambient light photosensors 125, 135,
145, 155 arranged at different locations on display device 100 for detecting
2
Appeal2018-000175
Application 13/733, 172
an ambient light level (Spec. 8:6-12). For example, these ambient light
photosensors can be arranged: (1) on side portions or lateral sides of display
device 100, shown in Figure 6 (Spec. 19:13-17); (2) directly integrated with
display elements of display device 10, shown in Figure 7 (Spec. 19:21-22);
and (3) in the comers of display device 10, shown in Figure 8 (Spec. 20:20-
22).
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A mobile display device comprising:
a display configured for displaying an upright image in
two or more operative orientations;
one or more orientation sensors;
a plurality of photosensors configured to detect ambient
light, wherein said plurality of photosensors are arranged
adjacent to a peripheral region of said display; and
processing circuitry operatively connected to said display,
said orientation sensors, and said photosensors;
wherein said processing circuitry is configured to:
identify the operative orientation of said device with
respect to gravity in response to input provided from said
orientation sensors;
display an upright image on said display;
[ 1] identify an uppermost photosensor with respect to
gravity; and
[2] control said display according to input from at
least the uppermost photos ens or; wherein the input from the
uppermost photosensor receives the highest weight when
inputs from multiple photosensors are combined to control
the display.
Correction to Appellant's Brief (App'x A) (bracketing added).
3
Appeal2018-000175
Application 13/733, 172
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Broga et al. (US 2011/0102451 Al; published
May 5, 2011) (hereinafter "Broga") and Herz et al. (US 2008/0165116 Al;
published July 10, 2008) (hereinafter "Herz"). Final Act. 3-9.
(2) Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Broga, Herz, and King et al. (US 2006/0238517 Al;
published Oct. 26, 2006) (hereinafter "King"). Final Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and similarly claim
15, the Examiner finds the combination of Broga and Herz teaches
Appellant's "mobile display device" including all the claim limitations.
Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 2--4. For example, the Examiner finds Broga teaches a
method for automatically adjusting display brightness on a mobile display
device in response to ( 1) device orientation and (2) ambient light levels.
Broga's Abstract. In particular, the Examiner finds Broga's mobile display
device includes:
"a display configured for displaying an upright image in
two or more operative orientations" (see Broga's Fig. 3A);
"one or more orientation sensors" (see Broga's Figs. 3A-
3B; see also Broga ,r 27 "accelerometer");
"a plurality of photo sensors configured to detect ambient
light" (see Broga ,r,r 14, 20); and
"processing circuitry operatively connected to said
display, said orientation sensors, and said photo sensors" (see
Broga ,r,r 20, 26, 27); and
4
Appeal2018-000175
Application 13/733, 172
"wherein said processing circuitry is configured to:
identify the operative orientation of said device with
respect to gravity in response to input provided from said
orientation sensors" (see Broga ,r,r 26-27); [and]
"display an upright image on said display" (see
Broga's Figs. 3A-3B).
Ans. 2-3 (citing Broga ,r,r 14, 20, 26-27, Figs. 3A-3B).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on
Herz for teaching [ 1] "wherein said plurality of photosensors are arranged
adjacent to a peripheral region of said display" and the processing circuitry
further configured to:
[2] "identify an uppermost photo sensor with respect to
gravity;" and
[3] "control said display according to input from at least
the uppermost photosensor ... ; wherein the input from the
uppermost photosensor receives the highest weight when inputs
from multiple photosensors are combined to control the display."
Ans. 3--4 ( citing Herz ,r 80).
In particular, Herz teaches: ( 1) using a plurality of ambient light
sensors mounted or disposed at different positions on a mobile device,
shown in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5A-5B; (2) weighting each of the plurality of
ambient light sensor outputs based on the location of each ambient light
sensor on the mobile device ( e.g., sensors pointing at the user may be given
a higher weight, whereas sensors facing the ground may be given lower
weights, as they face away from light incident upon the display); and (3)
using an aggregate of the weighted ambient light sensor outputs to control
the display. Herz ,r,r 10, 80.
Herz's Figures 5A-5B are reproduced below:
5
Appeal2018-000175
Application 13/733, 172
70
84 98 ., 92 ) 70
) 88
96
95
FIG. SA FIG. 58
Herz's Figures 5A-5B show mobile device 670 having multiple
sensors 84, 84A arranged such that: (1) sensor 84 is facing a user when
mobile device 70 is open, while sensor 84A is pointing toward the ground,
and (2) sensor 84A is facing the user when mobile device 70 is closed.
Appellant contends the Examiner's combination of Broga and Herz
does not teach or suggest disputed limitations of claims 1 and 15, including:
( 1) "identify an uppermost photo sensor with respect to
gravity; and"
(2) "control said display according to input from at least the
uppermost photosensor; wherein the input from the
uppermost photosensor receives the highest weight when
inputs from multiple photosensors are combined to control
the display."
Br. 4--10. According to Appellant, Herz's sensor 84A, shown in Figure 5B,
cannot be interpreted as Appellant's claimed "uppermost photosensor"
6
Appeal2018-000175
Application 13/733, 172
because such an interpretation "is clearly[] performed by the Examiner,
not by the device of Herz." Br. 6. In particular, Appellant argues Herz
only teaches "the use of the sensed device orientation to identify the
direction to which various photosensors are facing" and "is silent with
respect to [] claimed step of identifying an uppermost photosensor with
respect to gravity." Br. 7 (emphasis in original). Appellant also argue
"significant differences between the teachings of Herz et al. and the present
disclosure" because "all four photosensors 125, 135, 135 [sic, 145], 155
[shown in Appellant's Figure 1] are provided in a common surface ... they
all face the same direction" whereas "[t]he teachings of Herz would not
result in the identification of any single photosensor, since all photosensors
are pointing in a common direction." Br. 8 (emphasis in original).
Because Herz' s teachings to weight the sensor outputs according to
the direction of which the sensors are pointing, Appellant argues Herz does
not teach the claimed limitation "control said display according to input
from at least the uppermost photosensor; wherein the input from the
uppermost photosensor receives the highest weight when inputs from
multiple photosensors are combined to control the display" recited in claims
1 and 15. Br. 9-10.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive and commensurate with the
scope of claims 1 and 15. Instead, we find the Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Ans. 9-15. As such, we adopt the Examiner's
findings and explanations provided therein. Id. At the outset, we note claim
terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
7
Appeal2018-000175
Application 13/733, 172
Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are
given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The phrase "an uppermost photosensor with respect to gravity" is not
defined by Appellant's Specification; rather, the term "uppermost" is
described in the context of an uppermost display edge of a display screen,
shown in Figure 5, and "signals from the one or more ambient light
photosensors adjacent [and/or proximal] to the uppermost display edge are
employed" such that
the signals from the ambient light photosensors adjacent to the
uppermost display edge receive the highest weight when
forming the weighted measure, the signals from the ambient
light photosensors adjacent to the middle display edges receive
an intermediate weight, and the signals from the ambient light
photosensors adjacent to the lowermost display edges receive
the lowest weight
in order determine a composite ambient light measure. Spec. 17 :2-18: 10.
Based on Appellant's Specification, the phrase "uppermost
photosensor with respect to gravity" recited in claims 1 and 15 refers to any
photosensor that is located adjacent and/or proximal to an uppermost display
edge of a display screen. As such, that phrase can be broadly, but
reasonably interpreted to encompass either Herz's sensor 84 or sensor 84A
as these sensors 84, 84A are also located adjacent and/or proximal to an
uppermost display edge of display screen 93, shown in Figure 5A, or display
screen 88, shown in Figure 5B, depending on whether mobile device 70 is
open or closed. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, because
"Appellant fails to claim how uppermost photosensors are identified,"
8
Appeal2018-000175
Application 13/733, 172
"ambient light readings is [sic] sufficient to determine face down and face
up sensors for the weighting algorithm," i.e., sensors pointing at the user
may be given a higher weight, whereas sensors facing the ground may be
given lower weights, as they face away from light incident upon the display.
Ans. 10 ( citing Herz ,r 80).
Because the phrase "uppermost photosensor with respect to gravity"
recited in claims 1 and 15 can be broadly, but reasonably interpreted to
encompass either Herz's sensor 84 or sensor 84A, we agree with the
Examiner that Herz teaches the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 15.
Ans. 9-15.
Based on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 15 and dependent claims 2-14 and 18, which
Appellant does not argue separately. Br. 13.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, Appellant has not demonstrated the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9