Ex Parte Seo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2009

10270147 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BYUNG-RYUL SEO
____________

Appeal 2009-003584
Application 10/270,147
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: September 30, 2009
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, THU A. DANG, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-53, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-003584
Application 10/270,147

2

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a function shifting apparatus for an
electronic appliance using an on- screen display, and a method for using the
same. The function shifting apparatus and method employ a first switch for
outputting a cursor moving signal according to the manipulation, and a
second switch for outputting a signal for function shifting. A plurality of
icons representing pre-set functions of the appliance that are set during
initialization of an on condition of the appliance are displayed on the display
screen of the appliance. The apparatus and method further employ an
indicating unit for displaying and moving the cursor on the display screen
according to the signal from the first switch to select one of the icons, and a
control unit for switching the state of the function of the appliance
represented by the selected icon according to the output signal of the second
switch. Accordingly, the icons are displayed on the display screen
concurrently with the image already being displayed on the display screen,
so that the functions of the electronic appliance can be shifted without
having to shift the menu in a rather complicated menu mode and also
without requiring a separate external button for function shifting. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. An apparatus for an electronic appliance having a display
screen, the apparatus comprising:
an indicating unit for displaying a cursor and icon set including
at least one icon on the display screen, each said icon representing a
Appeal 2009-003584
Application 10/270,147

3
respective current functional state of the appliance, and the cursor
being adapted to select a said icon;
a switch apparatus, adapted to output a first signal for moving
the cursor and a second signal for switching a functional state of a
function of the appliance represented by the icon selected by the
cursor; and
a control unit, adapted to switch the functional state of the
function of the appliance represented by the icon which the cursor
selected according to the second output signal and change a form of
the icon to represent a switched functional state of the appliance.

Prior Art
MacPhail 6,661,434 B1 Dec. 9, 2003
Segal 6,765,557 B1 Jul. 20, 2004
Nishimura 6,778,217 B1 Aug. 17, 2004
Ausems 2003/0013483 A1 Jan. 16, 2003

Sony Corporation, DCR-PC110 Digital Video Camera Recorder
Product Manual (2000) (“Sony”).

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-18, 20-22, 24-26, 28, 30, 32, 34-39,
41, 42, 45, and 47-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishimura and Ausems.
Claims 6, 10, 23, 27, 29, 31, 33, 40, 43, 44, and 46 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura, Ausems,
and Sony.
Appeal 2009-003584
Application 10/270,147

4
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishimura, Ausems, and MacPhail.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishimura, Ausems, and Segal.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Nishimura and Ausems teaches “a control unit, adapted to
switch the functional state of the function of the appliance represented by the
icon which the cursor selected according to the second output signal and
change a form of the icon to represent a switched functional state of the
appliance” as recited in claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Ausems
1. Ausems discloses a personal digital assistant (PDA) telephone
100 with a main screen 156 that includes system menu 158. The system
menu 158 contains a number of status icons 160 that communicate
information regarding the status of PDA telephone 100 and its various
operational units. When these icons 160 are selected, they provide links to
settings, properties, applets, and/or applications. Figs. 1 and 3; ¶ [0064].
Appeal 2009-003584
Application 10/270,147

5
2. Selection of an icon may be performed by using the buttons 112
or by using stylus 118 (or other pointing device). Fig. 1; ¶ [0065].
3. To select an icon using buttons 112, the screen cursor 162
(which may appear as a box around a screen area and/or as a highlighted
region within display 106) is moved to the system menu 158 screen area at
the top of the display (e.g., using the up/down ones of buttons 112) and the
screen area is selected (e.g., using the center one of buttons 112). Then,
individual icons may be selected by scrolling through the icons (again using
the up/down ones of buttons 112) and making a selection using the center
button. For clarity, individual icons, such as input toggle icon 176, are
shown to the right of the main screen image. Figs. 1 and 3; ¶ [0066].
4. PDA telephone 100 may be configured to respond to different
types of user input, such as via a keyboard (real or virtual) or through
handwriting recognition (e.g., as is commonly used with handheld computer
systems). The input toggle icon 176 may be used to indicate the currently
set user input mode. Thus, the icon 176 may toggle between having the
appearance of a keyboard and another input instrument (e.g., a pen or stylus)
according to the current input mode. A user may select the input method by
performing a selection operation on the icon 176 to display an Input Method
field. Table 1.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
Appeal 2009-003584
Application 10/270,147

6
skill in the art. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d
575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
(1966). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Nishimura teaches an indicating unit and a
switch apparatus within the meaning of claim 1 (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner
also finds that Nishimura teaches a control unit, adapted to switch the
functional state of the function of the appliance represented by the icon
which the cursor selected according to the second output signal (Ans. 4).
Appellant does not contest these findings.
Appellant contends that Ausems does not disclose or suggest a system
and method for changing of the form of the icon to represent the switched or
changed functional state of the appliance wherein such functional state
further includes cursor movement as part of the functional state of the
Appeal 2009-003584
Application 10/270,147

7
appliance. App. Br. 13-14. However, claim 1 does not recite “wherein such
functional state further includes cursor movement as part of the functional
state of the appliance,” and Appellant has provided no evidence or
persuasive argument for reading this limitation into claim 1.
According to Appellant, the various icon forms in Ausems result from
a tap/click step, and not from any other function, such as moving a cursor.
App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 12-13. However, Ausems does in fact disclose
moving a cursor to select an icon and to change the form of the icon to
represent a switched functional state of the appliance (FF 1-4). Appellant
has failed to address Ausems’s teaching of using buttons to move a cursor to
select the input toggle icon, in order to toggle between keyboard and stylus
input modes. The form of the input toggle icon changes according to the
current input mode (id.). Appellant’s contention is therefore inconsistent
with Ausems’s teaching.
Because Ausems teaches moving a cursor to select an icon and to
change the form of the icon to represent a switched functional state of the
appliance, we find that the combination of Nishimura and Ausems teaches
“a control unit, adapted to switch the functional state of the function of the
appliance represented by the icon which the cursor selected according to the
second output signal and change a form of the icon to represent a switched
functional state of the appliance” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant’s arguments for the remaining claims are based on the
premise that the combination of Nishimura and Ausems does not teach a
control unit, adapted to switch the functional state of the function of the
appliance represented by the icon which the cursor selected according to the
second output signal and change a form of the icon to represent a switched
Appeal 2009-003584
Application 10/270,147

8
functional state of the appliance. We find these arguments unpersuasive as
discussed in the analysis of claim 1.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in finding that
the combination of Nishimura and Ausems teaches “a control unit, adapted
to switch the functional state of the function of the appliance represented by
the icon which the cursor selected according to the second output signal and
change a form of the icon to represent a switched functional state of the
appliance” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14-18, 20-22, 24-26, 28,
30, 32, 34-39, 41, 42, 45, and 47-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishimura and Ausems is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 6, 10, 23, 27, 29, 31, 33, 40, 43, 44, and 46
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura, Ausems,
and Sony is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishimura, Ausems, and MacPhail is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishimura, Ausems, and Segal is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2009-003584
Application 10/270,147

9

msc

Joseph J. Buczynski
Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P.
Suite 600
1300 19th Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20036