Ex Parte Perttula

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13970218 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/970,218 08/19/2013
10949 7590 09/28/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paavo Perttula
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.
042933/437000 5203
EXAMINER
MA, TIZE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAA VO PERTTULA
Appeal2015-005277
Application 13/970,218
Technology Center 2600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 9, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 28-42. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-005277
Application 13/970,218
Exemplary Claim
9. Method in a mobile communications device, comprising:
providing foreground data comprising at least one data
subset,
providing background data,
determining a first position and a first amount of the
background data to display on a display unit in the mobile
communications device,
determining a first position and a first amount of the at
least one data subset of the foreground data to display on the
display unit in the mobile communications device,
displaying the background and foreground data according
to the determined first positions and first amounts on said display
unit,
rece1vmg direction data, from an input device in the
mobile communications device, defining a direction of
movement of said displayed amount of the at least one data
subset of the foreground data on said display unit, the movement
representing a translation,
determining, based on the received direction data, a
second position and a first amount of the background data to
display, the first amount being larger than zero,
determining, by signal processing circuitry and based on
the received direction data, a second position and a second
amount of the at least one data subset of the foreground data to
display, the second amount being larger than zero,
wherein the second position associated with the
background data corresponds to a first displacement in or
opposite said direction of movement relative to the first position;
and the second position associated with the at least one
data subset of the foreground data corresponds to a second
2
Appeal2015-005277
Application 13/970,218
displacement in said direction of movement relative to the first
position,
wherein the relative change of position of the background
data is different from the relative change of position of the at least
one data subset of the foreground data.
App. Br. 9, Claims Appx.
Rejection1
The Examiner rejects claims 9, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 28-42 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Naughton (US 2002/0060701
Al; May 23, 2002) and Ueshima (US 2005/0211080 Al; Sept. 29, 2005).
Final Act. (June 2, 2014) 5-10.
ISSUE
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding Ueshima teaches
or suggests a relative change of position of background data that is different
from a reiative change of position of foreground data, as recited by each of
the independent claims?
ANALYSIS
Appellant's sole argument with respect to the Examiner's obviousness
rejection is that the Examiner errs in finding Ueshima's background 74 and
foreground 73, 76 of Figures 9-12 and background 74 and foreground 73,
415 of Figure 52 teach or suggest a relative change in position of
background data that is different from a relative change of position of
foreground data. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 1-2. We do not address the
1 The Examiner withdrew the double patenting rejection. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2015-005277
Application 13/970,218
Examiner's findings as they pertain to Figures 9--12 because, as detailed
below, the Examiner's findings with respect to Figure 52 show that Ueshima
teaches or suggests the disputed recitations.
88
Ueshima's Figure 52 is reproduced below:
82
70
1" 05 ... 16
Ueshima's Figure 52, reproduced above, illustrates a video
game's screenshot of boy 73 and girl 415 racing one another
across a scrolling landscape of mountains. Ueshima i-f 274.
72
Appellant states the Examiner errs in finding U eshima teaches or
suggests the foreground characters 73, 415 as translating differently than the
scrolling background 7 4 because:
[N]either Figure 52 of Ueshima nor the single paragraph of
Ueshima, namely, paragraph [0274], which discusses Figure
52[,] describes any difference in the relative change of position
4
Appeal2015-005277
Application 13/970,218
of the background data from that of at least data subset of the
foreground data, as set forth by the independent claims.
Reply Br. 1-2.
We do not agree the Examiner erred because, as the Examiner
correctly finds:
Based on their running speeds, [the boy 73 and girl 415] may get
closer to each other, or further away from each other. There is
simply no way to fix both characters on the screen if they have
different speeds (the whole point of a running competition). That
is, at least one foreground object is not fixed on the screen. That
means, at least one foreground object moves relative to the
screen. The background moves relative to the screen. And at
least one foreground object moves relative to the background.
Ans. 4.
The Examiner has articulated a reasonable inference. See KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ("[A]nalysis should be made
explicit. ... [But it] need not seek out precise teachings ... [and] can take
account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skin in the
art would employ."). The Examiner has particularly inferred that the
characters 73, 415 are translated, or at least would have been obvious to
have translated them, to indicate which character is the leader and the
leader's margin over laggard. Moreover, the Examiner has established that
such translation occurs during leftward scrolling of the background 7 4 to
convey the progress of the characters 73, 415. All the above plainly occurs
in response to the same inputs causing the characters 73, 415 to run through
the background 74. Id. Appellant fails to address these reasonable
conclusions, stating only that the above is not expressly described by
Ueshima.
5
Appeal2015-005277
Application 13/970,218
Conclusion
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding Ueshima's
Figure 52 embodiment teaches or suggests a relative change of position of
background data that is different from a relative change of position of
foreground data, as recited by each of the independent claims. Accordingly,
we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 9, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 28-42
over Naughton and Ueshima.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 9, 17, 18, 20, 21,
and 28-42.
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
6