Ex Parte LeonardDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201813733172 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation