Ex Parte Manchester

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2014

10412042 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SCOTT MANCHESTER
____________________

Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-13, 15-28, 30-43, and 45-54. Claims 14, 29, and 44 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was
held on January 28, 2014.
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to automatically orienting displays
(Spec. 1, [0001]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for orienting a display image, said method
comprising the steps of:
sensing at least one characteristic of an object;
determining an orientation of said object from at least
one of said at least one sensed characteristic; and
orienting said display image relative to said determined
orientation of said object, wherein:
said display image comprises a plurality of display
image portions;
at least one of said plurality of display image
portions comprises a control portion comprising a display
representation of a functional control, said representation
of a functional control responsive to a touch input;
the functional control is configured to change
content of at least one of the plurality of display image
Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042

3
portions of the display image other than the at least one
display image portion comprising a control portion;
each display image portion is individually oriented
in response to said determined orientation of said object,
wherein, when said object is oriented, a relative
orientation of the control portion with respect to said
object remains constant and said display representation of
a functional control is oriented in response to said
determined orientation of said object; and
each display image portion is capable of being
oriented in less than 90 degree increments.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Register US 5,661,632 Aug. 26, 1997
Buxton US 6,115,025 Sep. 5, 2000
Kagle US 6,148,149 Nov. 14, 2000
Allport US 6,256,019 B1 Jul. 3, 2001
Robbins US 6,326,978 B1 Dec. 4, 2001
Sohn US 2002/0091762 A1 Jul. 11, 2002
Gutta US 2002/0149613 A1 Oct. 17, 2002
Verplaetse US 6,721,738 B2 Apr. 13, 2004
Niikawa US 7,161,618 B1 Jan. 9, 2007
Hinckley, Ken, Sensing Techniques for Mobile Interaction”ACM
UIST 2000, Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology,

Claims 1-5, 8, 15-20, 23, 30-35, 38, 45-50, and 52-54 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hinckley, Buxton,
Robbins, Sohn, and Register.
Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042

4
Claims 6, 21, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins, Sohn, Register, and Niikawa.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 22, 24, 25, 37, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins,
Sohn, Register, and Kagle.
Claims 11, 26, 41, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins, Sohn, Register, and
Verplaetse.
Claims 12, 27, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins, Sohn, Register,
Verplaetse, and Allport.
Claims 13, 28, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins, Sohn, Register, and
Gutta.

II. ISSUE
The main issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins, Sohn, and
Register teaches or would have suggested a method for “orienting a display
image” wherein “at least one of said plurality of display image portions
comprises a control portion comprising a display representation of a
functional control, said representation of a functional control responsive to
a touch” and “a relative orientation of the control portion with respect to said
object remains constant and said display representation of a functional
control is oriented in response to said determined orientation of said object”
(claim 1, emphases added).
Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042

5

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s Figs. 2A-B are reproduced below:

Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042

6

Figures 2A and 2B show a display device, wherein the image portion
14a of Figure 2B is rotated by 90° with respect to the equivalent display
image portion shown in Figure 2A, and control buttons 18 of Figure 2B are
also rotated by 90° with respect to the equivalent control buttons of Figure
2A.

Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042

7
Register
2. Register discloses, wherein Figures 4-5 are reproduced below:

Figure 4 shows a display screen 26 with four vertical rows of
upper and lower command icons 54a, 54b positioned just above the
bottom end of the display screen 26 and horizontally aligned with one
of the toggle-type control buttons 28, 30, 32, 34, wherein different
command text and/or graphics “C” is appropriately displayed in each
of the command icons 54a, 54b in an upright orientation with respect
to the user holding the computer in its portrait orientation (col. 3, ll.
37-44).
Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042

8

Figure 5 shows the computer in a landscape orientation by rotating the
computer ninety degrees in a counterclockwise direction from its Figure 4
portrait orientation (col. 3, ll. 54-59).

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant’s invention is directed to a display device that comprises a
control portion 18 comprising a display representation of a functional
control 18a, 18b that is responsive to a touch, wherein when the display
device is rotated, the relative orientation of the control portion 18 with
respect to the display device 12 remains constant (on the side opposite from
sensor 16) while the display representation of a functional control 18a, 18b
is oriented in response to the determined orientation of display device (FF
1). Appellant contends that none of the applied references, “whether
considered alone or in any combination, disclose or suggest” the claimed
subject matter (App. Br. 17).
Appellant then contends that the Examiner’s proposed modification of
references would “change their respective principles of operation” (id.). In
Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042

9
particular, Appellant contends that “Buxton is directed to maintaining the
orientation of its button type menu 30 with respect to a fixed reference
orientation 36, despite movement of the display 32” (App. Br. 19). Thus,
Appellants contend that modifying Buxton and the other references “to
incorporate the command text and/or graphic reorientation functionality as
disclosed by Register would require changing the principle operation of how
Buxton orients its button type menu 30” (App. Br. 20).
Although we agree with the Examiner that Register discloses that “the
icon 54’s rectangular control portion orientation is maintained with the
display and the functional image of each icon 54 is maintained to user’s
perspective” (FF 2; Ans. 35) and that “[t]he claims do not exclude the user
pressing a button to determine orientation of the object” as taught by
Register (Ans. 33), we cannot find any suggestion in the Examiner’s recited
portion of Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins, Sohn, and Register that the
combination teaches or fairly suggests a “control portion” comprising
“representation of a functional control responsive to a touch” wherein “a
relative orientation of the control portion with respect to said object remains
constant and said display representation of a functional control is oriented in
response to said determined orientation of said object” as required by claim
1 (emphases added).
More particularly, although Register’s control portion is maintained
with the display (FF 2), the control portion described in the cited section of
Register does not comprise functional control representations that are
“responsive to a touch” as required by the claims (claim 1). In particular,
the control buttons are manual buttons with command icons 54a, 54b aligned
therewith (FF 2). We are unsure, and the Examiner does not provide a
Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042

10
reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to modify a display screen, with a control portion having functional control
representations that are responsive to touch, with the teachings of Register.
In fact, the Examiner concludes that the methods “have the same result of
maintaining button orientation to the user’s perspective” (Ans. 34).
We find that the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious to modify touch screen displays (having control portion with
representations responsive to touch) to maintain the relative orientation of
the control portion with respect to the display (as opposed to the user’s
perspective) as taught by Register (Ans. 35) would require us to resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We, however, will not resort
to such speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the factual
basis in order to support the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins, Sohn,
and Register. Further, independent claim 16, 31, and 46 having similar
claim language and claims 2-5, 8, 15, 17-20, 23, 30, 32-35, 38, 45, 47-50,
and 52-54 (depending respectively from claims 1, 16, 31, and 46) stand with
claim 1.
The Examiner does not explain how Niikawa, Kagle, Verplaetse,
Allport or Gutta would have cured the deficiencies of Hinckley, Buxton,
Robbins, Sohn, and Register discussed above. Accordingly, we are also
constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 21, and 36 over
Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins, Sohn, Register, and Niikawa; of claims 7, 9, 10,
22, 24, 25, 37, 39, and 40 over Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins, Sohn, Register,
Appeal 2011-010668
Application 10/412,042

11
and Kagle; of claims 11, 26, 41, and 51 over Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins,
Sohn, Register, and Verplaetse; of claims 12, 27, and 42 over Hinckley,
Buxton, Robbins, Sohn, Register, Verplaetse, and Allport; and of claims 13,
28, and 43 over Hinckley, Buxton, Robbins, Sohn, Register, and Gutta.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-13, 15-28, 30-43, and 45-54
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

tj