Ex Parte Miyahara

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

13809525 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/809,525 01/10/2013
466 7590
YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 Madison Street
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
07/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masaki Miyahara
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.
8017-1505 1667
EXAMINER
MANDEVILLE, JASON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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):
DocketingDept@young-thompson.com
yandtpair@firs ttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAKI MIYAHARA
Appeal2018-000603
Application 13/809,525 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-10, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
An oral hearing was held June 6, 2019. A transcript of the oral hearing is
being prepared and will be entered into the record in due course.
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies NEC Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000603
Application 13/809,525
Summary of disclosure
Appellant discloses a coordinate notification unit that "notifies an
application (140) of the physical coordinates at which contact was sensed
when the application is displaying the image on one of' a plurality of display
units, but that "notifies the application (140) of the virtual coordinates
supplied by the coordinate conversion unit (120) when the one application is
displaying the image straddling the display units." Abstract.
Illustrative claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A display device comprising:
a plurality of display units that are equipped with a touch panel
function and that display an image that is information;
a coordinate conversion unit that, when one application is
displaying said image straddling said plurality of display units,
uses a predetermined operation to convert physical coordinates
that indicate the position at which one display unit of said
plurality of display units senses contact to virtual coordinates;
and
a coordinate notification unit that, when one application is
displaying said image on only one display unit among said
plurality of display units, reports the physical coordinates at
which said display unit senses contact to the application and,
when one application is displaying said image straddling said
plurality of display units, reports said virtual coordinates to the
application.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Jenkin et al. (US 6,118,433; issued Sept. 12, 2000) ("Jenkin").
Final Act. 3-8.
2
Appeal2018-000603
Application 13/809,525
ANALYSIS
Jenkin discloses an integrated display unit (DU) formed by a
rectangular tessellation of smaller touch-sensitive basic display units
(BDUs). See, e.g., Jenkin col. 2, 11. 63-56, col. 4, 11. 36-38, Figs. 2, 5, 7.
Software running on the integrated display unit appears on a single logical
screen because each location on a basic display unit, having a physical width
w and physical height h, corresponds to a logical pixel location (r, c ). See id.
col. 4, 11. 36-46. Specifically, "[t]he numbering of logical pixels and
respective BDU's from the upper left hand comer of DU 10 is such that a
given logical pixel location (r,c) corresponds to the physical pixel location
(mod(r,h), mod (c,w)) on a given BDU positioned at (div(r,h), div(c,w))."
Id. col. 4, 11. 43--48.
In rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated, the Examiner finds that
Jenkin discloses "when one application is displaying said image on only one
display unit among said plurality of display units, reports the physical
coordinates at which said display unit senses contact to the application"
because when an image is being displayed on only the upper left basic
display unit, the coordinates received with respect to interactions with the
panel on which the image is displayed will have "a one-to-one relationship
with the coordinates associated with the corresponding" physical coordinates
of the upper left basic display unit. See Ans. 9; see also Final Act. 4. The
Examiner emphasizes "there is no limitation placed on the claimed
'coordinate conversion unit' that limits the conversion of the claimed
physical coordinates to virtual coordinates only 'when one application is
displaying said image straddling said plurality of display units."' Ans. 11-
12. That is, the Examiner finds that whether Jenkin converts physical
3
Appeal2018-000603
Application 13/809,525
coordinates to logical coordinates is irrelevant provided that the coordinates
reported are the same as the physical coordinates. See id. at 13.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because, "in Jenkin, the
physical coordinates where contact is sensed on an individual BDU are in all
cases converted into logical coordinates for the overall DU 10." Appeal Br.
2-3; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant's arguments are persuasive.
Based on the formula and layout disclosed in Jenkin, the physical and
logical coordinates in Jenkin coincide for the upper left basic display unit.
See Jenkin col. 4, 11. 9-15, Fig. 7. They fail, however, to coincide for any
other basic display unit. Id. Regardless whether an image is displayed on
only one basic display unit, or whether the image straddles multiple display
units, the reported coordinates for a sensed contact always represent logical
(i.e., virtual) coordinates. See id. at col. 4, 11. 43--48 (the formula connecting
a logical pixel location with a basic display unit's physical location does not
take into account whether an image is on basic display unit or straddles basic
display units). Importantly, displaying an image on only one basic display
unit, other than the upper left one, would not result in the reporting of
coordinates that coincide with the physical coordinates of the basic display
unit. Thus, contrary to the Examiner's findings, Jenkin does not describe a
system that meets the requirement to report "'physical coordinates' ... when
'one application' is displaying an image 'on only one display unit."' Ans.
13. Therefore, the Examiner's findings do not show that Jenkin describes
"when one application is displaying said image on only one display unit
among said plurality of display units, reports the physical coordinates at
which said display unit senses contact to the application," as recited in claim
1.
4
Appeal2018-000603
Application 13/809,525
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-10, which have similar recitations and are
similarly rejected.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10.
REVERSED
5