Ex Parte Oh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2013

11368427 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/368,427 03/07/2006 Sang-Gi Oh 50521 7201
1609 7590 02/21/2013
ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.
1300 19TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON,, DC 20036
EXAMINER
ZHOU, HONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2013 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 SANG-GI OH and JAE-SER LEE
____________

Appeal 2011-004741
Application 11/368,427
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004741
Application 11/368,427

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The claims are directed to controlling the display of an image on a
mobile terminal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for controlling the display of an image
according to the movement of a mobile terminal, which
comprises the steps of:

detecting a movement of the mobile terminal during
display of an image;

determining whether a predetermined period of time
expires after detection of the movement;

searching images stored in the mobile terminal according
to the direction of movement of the mobile terminal, if another
movement is detected before the predetermined period of time
expires; and

displaying a portion of the image moved according to the
direction of movement of the mobile terminal, if another
movement is not detected before the predetermined period of
time expires.

Appeal 2011-004741
Application 11/368,427

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lands
Nobukiyo
Tsunoda
US 6,201,554 B1
US 6,738,042 B1
US 2005/0001815 A1
Mar. 13, 2001
May 18, 2004
Jan. 6, 2005

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Tsunoda, Nobukiyo, and Lands.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Lands fails to disclose “searching images
stored in the mobile terminal according to the direction of movement of the
mobile terminal,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 6-8). Appellants also
contend that there is no reason to combine Nobukiyo with Tsunoda and
Lands because Nobukiyo is unrelated to the other references (App. Br. 8-9).
Further, Appellants contend that there is no reasonable combination of the
cited references that would result in the claimed invention (App. Br. 9-11).
While we understand Appellants’ argument that Lands’ device
performs image searching based on a resulting angle of the device with
respect to a reference plane, as opposed to the direction the device was
moved to achieve that angle (see App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 4-6), we note that
Appellants have not addressed the collective teachings of the cited
references with respect to the “searching images . . . according to the
direction of movement” limitation. The Examiner relies on Nobukiyo for
Appeal 2011-004741
Application 11/368,427

4
disclosing the technique of moving a device once or twice in a particular
direction to implement either of two particular commands (Ans. 5, 14-15).
Although Nobukiyo’s device is rotated about a central axis to perform
commands (see Nobukiyo, col. 10, ll. 5-10; Fig. 12), we conclude that the
claim 1 language “direction of movement” is broad enough to encompass
angular or rotational movement. Further, Nobukiyo’s commands are
performed “according to the direction of movement” as recited in claim 1—
not “irrespective of the direction of an angular movement,” as Appellants
argue regarding Lands (App. Br. 8)—because Nobukiyo’s device performs
either of two different commands if the device is moved once or twice in the
opposite direction (see Nobukiyo, Fig. 12). In other words, Nobukiyo’s
commands are tied to the direction of movement and the number of
movements in that same direction. Thus, considering the combination of
Tsunoda and Nobukiyo in view of Lands’ disclosure of image searching
(Appellants also admit that “image-searching” is “well-known in the prior
art” (see Reply Br. 11)), we find that the collective teachings of the cited
references would have taught or suggested performing an image searching
command in response to moving a device a specified number of times (once
or twice) in a specific direction, which meets the claim 1 limitation
“searching images stored in the mobile terminal according to the direction of
movement of the mobile terminal.”
Further, we are not persuaded that Nobukiyo is unrelated to Tsunoda
and Lands as Appellants argue (App. Br. 8-9). Specifically, Appellants
argue that “Nobyukiyo [sic] is primarily directed to a character conversion
scheme, which has no relevance to either image-searching or image-
Appeal 2011-004741
Application 11/368,427

5
scrolling. Hence, Nobyukiyo [sic] is unrelated to either Lands or Tsunoda”
(App. Br. 8-9). However, we conclude the claim 1 term “image” is broad
enough to include a set of characters displayed on a screen. In fact,
Appellants have acknowledged the breadth of the term “image” by
recognizing that Tsunoda’s magnified display of a set of Japanese
characters, where a user can view different portions of the characters by
moving the device in a particular direction (see Tsunoda, Figs. 3A, 3B, 14),
constitutes “image-scrolling” (see App. Br. 9). Nobukiyo discloses
searching candidate Japanese characters to which a displayed set of another
type of Japanese characters can be converted, specifically, by moving the
device in a particular direction (Nobukiyo, col. 6, ll. 26-37; col. 10, ll. 1-13;
Fig. 12). Thus, we find Nobukiyo also relates to “images” as claimed,
particularly, image searching.
Further, although the example in Nobukiyo’s Figure 12 shows that a
single movement in a particular direction causes searching through candidate
characters, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that Nobukiyo’s searching function could also have been
implemented with two movements in the same direction, in view of
Nobukiyo’s general disclosure that “the character conversion apparatus can
execute different commands depending upon whether the body is tilted once
or is successively tilted twice within a predetermined interval of time”
(Nobukiyo, col. 10, ll. 10-13). Moreover, even though Appellants argue that
Nobukiyo’s device is primarily concerned with character conversion (App.
Br. 8), we find an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized the
usefulness of Nobukiyo’s Japanese character conversion technique in a
Appeal 2011-004741
Application 11/368,427

6
device capable of displaying and scrolling through Japanese characters, such
as Tsunoda’s device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007) (“Common sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious
uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary
skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces
of a puzzle.”). Accordingly, not only are Tsunoda and Nobukiyo related art,
but one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to assign
Nobukiyo’s searching for candidate characters (image searching) function—
with image searching additionally disclosed in Lands—to two movements of
Tsunoda’s device in the same direction, in addition to Tsunoda’s image
scrolling function based on a single movement in that direction. In view of
the combination as discussed above, Appellants’ argument that no
reasonable combination of the cited references would result in the claimed
invention (App. Br. 9-11) is not persuasive.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14 not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13,
and 14.
Appeal 2011-004741
Application 11/368,427

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

pgc