Ex Parte Phillips

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13051547 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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.
13/051,547 03/18/2011 W Garland Phillips 2558.072US1 4745
95866 7590 02/02/2017
Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P.L.
551 NW 77th street
Suite 111
Boca Raton, EL 33487
EXAMINER
SADIO, INSA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
ptoboc a @ fggbb .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte W. GARLAND PHILLIPS
Appeal 2016-004110
Application 13/051,547
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, SHARON FENICK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-004110
Application 13/051,547
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4—23, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “methods, apparatus and computer
program products to display visual information on a foldable display
device.” (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary:
1. A display system, comprising:
a foldable display unit to display visual information in a
display area, the visual information based at least in part on
display data; and
a display control unit receiving the display data and at least
one fold signal indicative of a fold in at least a portion of the
display area, and outputting one or more display control signals
operative to cause the display unit to display the visual
information, the display control signals being output at least in
part in response to the at least one fold signal to adapt the one or
more display control signals to change an appearance of the
visual information;
wherein the fold in the display unit creates a deformed area
located within the display area, the deformed area located
adjacent to a fold axis of the display unit;
wherein the display control unit outputs one or more display
control signals to change the appearance of the visual
information to compensate for impairment in the deformed area
that is caused by the fold;
1 Appellant identifies BlackBerry Limited as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal 2016-004110
Application 13/051,547
wherein the appearance of the visual information in or near
the deformed area is changed from a first display format to a
second display format, the second display format configured to
provide a display of the same visual information provided in the
first display format; and
wherein the second display format compensates for
impairment of visual information displayed in or near the
deformed area by providing an appearance of a continuous
display of the visual information across the deformed area while
maintaining a constant size of the continuous display of the
visual information in the first display format and in the second
display format.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, and 4—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2010/0141605 Al; published June 10,
2010), Nozawa (US 2005/0140646 Al; published June 30, 2005), Choi et al.
(US 2010/0056223 Al; published March 4, 2010), and Cho et al. (US
2003/0231144 Al; published December 18, 2003). (See Final Act. 2—11.)
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejections are in error for the
following reasons (emphasis omitted from quotations):
1. The “[references provide no teaching or suggestion of ‘while
maintaining a constant size of the continuous display of the visual
information in the first display format and in the second display format’ and
Cho is not combinable with other cited references.” (See App. Br. 7—9.)
2. The “[references fail to teach ‘compensate for impairment of
visual information displayed in or near a deformed area of the display area.’”
(See App. Br. 10-11.)
3
Appeal 2016-004110
Application 13/051,547
3. The “[references fail to teach or suggest ‘change the display of
visual information . . . [to] compensate^ for impairment in the display of
visual information in the display area that is introduced by the fold in the
display unit.’” (See App. Br. 11—13.)
4. The combination does not teach or suggest that “the one or
more display control signals to change the appearance avoids the display of
the visual information on or near the fold axis in the folded display unit,” as
recited in claim 4 and similarly recited in claim 17. (See App. Br. 13—14.)
5. The combination does not teach or suggest that “the one or
more display control signals to change the appearance compensates for
impairment of the visual information displayed in or near the deformed area
that is experienced by a viewer of the visual information at a particular
viewing angle,” as recited in claim 5. (See App. Br. 14—15.)
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s claim 1 is directed to a foldable display that receives a
signal indicative of a fold in the display area, where: (a) the fold in the
display creates a “deformed area”; (b) a signal is output to change the
appearance of the visual information to compensate for “impairment” in the
deformed area; (c) the appearance of the visual information in or near the
deformed area is changed from a first format to a second format providing
the same visual information; and (d) the second format compensates for the
impairment by providing a continuous display across the deformed area
while maintaining a constant size in both display formats. The portion of the
Specification identified by Appellant as supporting (d) explains that
visual information continues to be displayed along and in the
area of the deformation 17 in the display, but is altered or
4
Appeal 2016-004110
Application 13/051,547
changed in order to improve the perceptibility or display
characteristics of the visual information, for example by
performing any of the operations to alter the display as
otherwise described herein, such as increasing the size of visual
information, such as fonts, in the area of the deformation, or
changing the color or brightness of visual information.
(Spec. 125; see App. Br. 4.)
The Examiner rejects the claims as obvious, finding that: (a) Kang
teaches a foldable display, a display control unit, display signals, and fold
signals to adapt the display; (b) Nozawa teaches signals to change the
appearance of visual information to compensate for impairment in a
deformed area; (c) Choi teaches changing from a first format to a second
format displaying the same visual information; and (d) Cho teaches
maintaining a constant size of the display in two formats. (See Final Act. 2—
5 (citing Nozawa 131 & Fig. 5A; Kang || 188, 191 & Fig. 21; and Cho 137
and Fig. 3).)
Claims 1, 2, 6—16, and 18—23
Appellant first asserts, regarding Cho, that “the Examiner appears to
refer to the ‘first display format’ as the information displayed on ‘one side of
the screen 23’ and the ‘second display format’ as the part of the information
displayed on the ‘adjacent side of the screen 25.’” (App. Br. 8.) Appellant
then argues that “Cho teaches two parts of one display that are displayed at
the same time,” which “is clearly not a teaching of a ‘first display format’
and a ‘second display format,’ within the context of a ‘second display
format’ that is a modification of a ‘first display format’ that is displayed at a
different time under a different condition for the display unit, as is set forth
by claim 1 when that claim is considered ‘as a whole.’” (Id.)
5
Appeal 2016-004110
Application 13/051,547
The Examiner responds that “Cho describes that in fig. 3, the
displayed image has the same size in both sides of the bent area and in the
bent area ([0037]).” (Ans. 12.)
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because the Examiner
correctly finds that Cho’s displayed image “has the same size in [A] both
sides of the bent area [considered as two parts] and [B] in the [entire] bent
area [considered as a whole],” meaning that the size is constant in an unbent
state (the whole, corresponding to a first display format) and in a bent state
(the sum of the two sides, corresponding to a second display format). We
recognize that Cho does not teach display control signals or two formats, but
the Examiner relies on Nozawa and Choi for those aspects of the claim. (See
Final Act. 3, 4.) And we find Appellant’s assertion that “it would not occur
to a practitioner of ordinary skill in the relevant arts to interpret the teachings
of Cho as a teaching to modify other references” (App. Br. 9) to be
conclusory and thus unpersuasive of error because it is merely unsupported
attorney argument.
We find Appellant’s second argument, that Choi does not teach or
suggest compensating for impairment, insufficient to show error because the
Examiner relies on Nozawa, not Choi, for teachings regarding compensation
for a deformed area, and Nozawa does provide such teachings. (See Final
Act. 3 (“Nozawa teaches wherein said the display control unit (fig.l [103],
[0021]) outputs one or more display control signals ([0021], [0034]) to
change the appearance of the visual information to compensate for
impairment in the deformed area that is caused by the fold ([0031], fig.
5 A).”); Nozawa 131 (“The scope of the present invention also includes a
display device which detects a deformation of the device with twist sensors
6
Appeal 2016-004110
Application 13/051,547
and corrects a strain of the display portion 101 to be caused by the device
body deformation to thereby improve a visual recognition.”).)
Appellant’s third argument also fails to show error because, as the
Examiner correctly finds, Kang teaches a control signal in response to a fold,
and Nozawa teaches compensating for impairment in the area of a fold. (See
Final Act. 2—3.) Appellant’s argument again attacks the references
individually, instead of addressing the combination actually made by the
Examiner. Appellant’s “further assertion] that it would not occur to one
[of] ordinary skill in the relevant arts to combine Cho with the other cited
references in the manner asserted in the rejections in order to achieve the
subject matter of the independent claims” (App. Br. 13) is again conclusory
and unsupported.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and the
rejections of claims 2, 6—16, and 18—23, which are argued together with
claim 1. (See App. Br. 7.)
Claims 4 and 17
Claim 4 recites that “the one or more display control signals to change
the appearance avoids the display of the visual information on or near the
fold axis in the folded display unit” and claim 17 claims similar subject
matter. The Examiner finds Kang teaches avoiding the display of the visual
information on or near the fold axis in the folded display unit, citing
paragraphs 41, 77—79, and 89. (Final Act. 5.) Appellant argues that “these
portions of Kang have no mention of any analogy of a controller that ‘avoids
the display of information on or near the fold axis’” (App. Br. 14) and, as we
agree with that assessment, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 4
and 17.
7
Appeal 2016-004110
Application 13/051,547
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites that “the one or more display control signals to change
the appearance compensates for impairment of the visual information
displayed in or near the deformed area that is experienced by a viewer of the
visual information at a particular viewing angle.” We sustain the rejection
of this claim because, as there is no limit on the “particular viewing angle,”
the claim covers any viewing angle and, therefore, does not narrow claim 1
in a way that would distinguish over the combination discussed above that
renders claim 1 obvious.
DECISION
The Section 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 5—16, and 18—23 are
affirmed.
The Section 103(a) rejections of claims 4 and 17 are reversed.
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-IN-PART
8