Ex Parte Perttula

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 6, 2013

11337936 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAAVO PERTTULA

___________

Appeal 2010-008189
Application 11/337,936
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008189
Application 11/337,936

2
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for displaying foreground
and background picture data and moving the foreground and background
picture data from first positions to second positions, where the relative
change of position of the background picture data is different from the
relative change of position of the foreground picture data. (Spec. page 4, l.
10-page 5, l. 2.)

Exemplary Claim
Claims 1 and 5 are independent. Independent claim 1 is
representative of the invention, and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations in italics:
1. Method in a mobile communications device, comprising:
providing foreground picture data,
providing background picture data,
determining a first position and a first amount of the picture
background data to display on a display unit in the mobile
communications device,
determining a first position and a first amount of the foreground
picture data to display on the display unit in the mobile
communications device,

1 The Real Party in Interest is Nokia Corp.
Appeal 2010-008189
Application 11/337,936

3
displaying the background and foreground picture data
according to the determined first positions and first amounts on
said display unit,
receiving direction data, from an input device in the mobile
communications device, defining a direction of movement of
said displayed amount of foreground picture 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 picture data to
display, the first amount being larger than zero,
determining, based on the received direction data, a second
position and amount of the foreground picture data to display,
the second amount being larger than zero,
wherein the second position associated with the background
picture 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 foreground picture
data corresponds to a second displacement in said direction of
movement relative to the first position,
wherein the relative change of position of the background
picture data is different from the relative change of position of
the foreground picture data.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Naughton (US Pub. 2002/0060701 A1) in view of Beitel
(US 5,150,312 A). (Ans. 3.)

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument (Br. 13-18) that the
combination of Naughton and Beitel fails to teach or suggest “wherein the
second position associated with the background picture data corresponds to a
Appeal 2010-008189
Application 11/337,936

4
first displacement in or opposite said direction of movement relative to the
first position” and “wherein the relative change of position of the
background picture data is different from the relative change of position of
the foreground picture data” as recited in independent claims 1 and 5.
Appellant and Examiner agree the claims require foreground picture
data and background picture data to move from a first position to a second
position and that those positions must be different from each other. (App.
Br. 8-9; Ans. 15.) The Examiner finds that Naughton does not teach
movement of the background picture data and foreground picture data on the
same screen (Ans. 11), but finds that Beitel teaches or suggests that “both
the background picture data and the foreground picture data are translated”
(Ans. 15).
The Examiner provides the rationale that Beitel teaches the disputed
claim limitations if only one background region of Beitel is displayed on the
screen at a time, then “a series of the display of the regions would create a
visual impression that the background is moving” (Ans. 16) (i.e., if the
display is only the size of 10a in Fig. 2c, then 10a will have to be replaced
by 10b, and then replaced by 10c, etc. and so it will appear as if the
background is moving). Per the Examiner, “[a]s combined with the
foreground picture, the result would be that both foreground and background
are moving and foreground moves relative to the background.” (Id.)
However, we do not find any supporting evidence in the Beitel specification
that teaches or suggests that only one division of the background is
displayed on a screen. Contrary to Examiner’s rationale, Beitel specifically
teaches that a display screen is divided into regions with a “present region”
and “next regions.” (Beitel, col. 2, ll. 58-67.) Further, under the Examiner’s
Appeal 2010-008189
Application 11/337,936

5
scenario there is no need for the teaching in Beitel of movement of the
foreground picture data in the S buffer in Fig. 2c from a “present region” to
a “next region.” (Beitel, col. 3, l. 10-col. 4, l. 18.) Therefore, we do not
agree with the Examiner that Beitel describes the limitations “wherein the
second position associated with the background picture data corresponds to a
first displacement in or opposite said direction of movement relative to the
first position” and “wherein the relative change of position of the
background picture data is different from the relative change of position of
the foreground picture data” as recited in independent claims 1 and 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1
and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Further, we do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claims 1 and 5.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc