Ex Parte Wernersson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2013

11293525 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013)

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.
11/293,525 12/02/2005 Mats Wernersson 9342-350 4812
54414 7590 11/01/2013
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
MANDEVILLE, JASON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2013 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 MATS WERNERSSON and PER WAHLSTROM
____________

Appeal 2011-013527
Application 11/293,525
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 7-9, 11-14, and 17-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-013527
Application 11/293,525

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to electronic device and
methods including button controls (Spec. ¶ [002]).
Independent claim 13, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
13. An electronic device comprising:
a plurality of button systems, each of the button systems
including:
an image sheet including first and second source
images;
a screen superimposed on the image sheet such
that the image sheet is displayed to a user through the
screen, wherein the screen includes a lenticular lens
screen having at least one prism adapted to convert the
first and second source images as displayed to the user
into first and second displayed images, the first and
second displayed images being different from the first
and second source images; and
wherein the image sheet and the screen are
relatively movable between a first position, wherein the
button system displays the first source image to the user
independent of viewing angle, and a second position,
wherein the button system displays the second source
image to the user independent of viewing angle; and
an actuator operable to relatively move at least one of the
image sheet with respect to the screen and the screen with
respect to the image sheet for each of the plurality of button
systems simultaneously between the first position and the
second position; and
a controller operative to control the actuator.

Appeal 2011-013527
Application 11/293,525

3
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 7-9, 12-14, 18-22, 24, and 25 under
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Bar-Yona (U.S. 6,226,906 B1
hereinafter “Bar-Yona ‘906”) and Bar-Yona (U.S. 6,805,506 B2 hereinafter
“Bar-Yona ‘506”).
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 17, 23, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Bar-Yona ‘906, Bar-Yona ‘506, and
Kasahara (U.S. 5,151,696).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Bar-Yona ‘906 and Bar-Yona ‘506 do not teach or
suggest the limitation of an actuator operable to relatively move at least one
of an image sheet for each of a plurality of button systems simultaneously
between first and second positions (Br. 4-5).
The Examiner rebuts, in detail, Appellants’ contentions (see Ans. 24-
30). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning set forth in the
Answer. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below.
Particularly, the Examiner has provided reasonable arguments
regarding the combination of the Bar-Yona references. We agree that
although Bar-Yona ‘906 does not explicitly disclose a button system as
claimed, Bar Yona ‘506 discloses such a system (Ans. 9, 26-27).
We are further mindful a skilled artisan would “be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the
skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Here, Appellants have
not demonstrated the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been
Appeal 2011-013527
Application 11/293,525

4
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief
rebutting the Examiner’s assertions.
Appellants provide no substantive arguments with respect to the
combination of Bar-Yona ‘906, Bar-Yona ‘506, and Kasahara (Br. 6).
We are therefore not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s
proffered reasoning and motivation to combine the references and sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7-9, 11-14, and 17-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7-9, 11-14, and 17-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw