Ex Parte Rydenhag

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

12724796 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121724,796 03/16/2010 Tobias Rydenhag
54414 7590 08/03/2016
MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, PA
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
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.
9342-492IPS10 0176 8010
EXAMINER
HE,WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2016 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 TOBIAS RYDENHAG
Appeal2015-001956
Application 12/724,796
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1 and 3-21. Claim 2 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-001956
Application 12/724,796
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An electronic device comprising:
a display screen;
a force sensor that is configured to generate a force signal
that indicates an amount of force being exerted thereon by a user;
and
a controller circuit that is configured to control a speed at
which displayed information items are scrolled on the display
screen responsive to the force signal and to control a tilt angle of
the displayed information items responsive to the force signal,
wherein the tilt angle of the displayed information items that are
scrolled on the display screen is increased with increased speed
at which the displayed information items are scrolled on the
display screen and the tilt angle of the displayed information
items that are scrolled on the display screen is decreased with
decreased speed at which the displayed information items are
scrolled on the display screen such that the tilt angle of the
displayed information items that are scrolled on the display
screen visually indicates to the user the speed at which the
displayed information items are scrolled on the display screen.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-15 and 20-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 7 ,822,443 B2; Oct. 26, 2010) and
Bong (US 2010/0005390 Al; Jan. 7, 2010). Claims 16, 17 and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Bong,
and Kang et al. (US 2010/0107046 Al; Apr. 29, 2010). Claim 18 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Kim, Bong, and Marakami
Design Office (2009) (available at http://www.seohiroshi.com).
2
Appeal2015-001956
Application 12/724,796
ANALYSIS
In the rejection of independent claims 1 and 20, the Examiner cites
Kim's teachings of a display-screen controller that controls the speed with
which a user can scroll through displayed information based on the pressure
of a user's touch against the screen and Bong's disclosures of display
screens that exhibit a number of visual responses proportional to the force of
a user's touch, including increasing speed with increasing force and
increasing the tilt angle with increasing force. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Kim
col. 2, 11. 38--43, col. 3, 11. 45--48; Bong Fig. 27, i-fi-f 12, 43, 96, 110, 134,
137); Ans. 2-5. Appellant contests the Examiner's findings relating to
Bong. App. Br. 6-11.
Specifically, Appellant contends Bong discloses adjustments to the tilt
angle of displayed information separately from Bong's disclosures of speed
controls such that Bong does not disclose or suggest controlling tilt angle as
an indication of scrolling speed as claimed. See App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 4--
5. According to Appellant, combining the disclosures of Bong would result
in either scrolling a 2D map screen such as that disclosed in Bong's Figure
28 or tilting the web page disclosed in Bong's Figure 23, neither of which
discloses or suggests controlling tilt angle to indicate a scrolling speed.
App. Br. 8.
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive. As the Examiner finds,
Bong teaches a display having a pressure sensor to detect the relative force
of a user's touch against the display screen. Ans. 5 (citing Bong i-fi-f 12, 43,
110). Bong teaches the sensor can cause a number of visual responses on
the screen that are proportional to the force of a user's touch, including
increasing scroll speed with increasing force and increasing the tilt angle
3
Appeal2015-001956
Application 12/724,796
with increasing force. See Bong Fig. 27; iii! 96, 131 (speed of scrolling
"may be determined by the level of pressure with which the webpage screen
720 is being pressure-touched"), 134, 137 (tilt angle "may be proportional to
the level of pressure applied to the display module"). Because Bong teaches
both tilt angle and speed control as two of a variety of programmed
responses to the same input (the level of touch pressure), we agree with the
Examiner that combining those responses would have been obvious. See
Ans. 3--4 (citing Bong 13 9 (suggesting "variations and combinations" of
disclosed embodiments)). Appellants offer no evidence to establish that
combining such responses would have been "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'!
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1and20, as well as claims 3
and 5-19, which Appellant does not address separately.
We are similarly unpersuaded of error by Appellant's argument that
Bong fails to teach or suggest the limitation "a widest tapered width of the
first displayed information item is wider than a widest tapered width of the
second displayed information item," as recited in claim 4 and similarly
recited in claim 21. Appellant argues the objects depicted in Bong's Figure
27(b) "appear to be tapered identically," but nothing in Bong limits its
disclosures to any particular dimensions that may be present in its figures.
See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'!, 222 F.3d 951, 956
(Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define
the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show
particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). The
4
Appeal2015-001956
Application 12/724,796
cited portions of Bong suggest tapering objects as a visual response to a
user's touch on a display screen, and we agree with the Examiner that the
disputed limitations of claims 4 and 21 would have been obvious in view of
Bong's disclosures. See Final Act. 7-8 (citing Bong Fig. 27, i-fi-f 134 ("an
image displayed on the image screen 820 may be rotated about a central
axis[,] ... an axis passing through a certain point on the image screen[,] ...
[or] one of the boundaries of the corresponding image"), 136); Ans. 4,
(citing Bong's disclosures of tilt-angle changes), 5 (citing Bong's
disclosures of rotation about an axis). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 21.
Having considered each of Appellant's arguments, we are
unpersuaded of error and sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and
3-21. We adopt as our own the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
reasons consistent with the above.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1and3-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5