Ex Parte Won et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2013

11219884 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 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.
11/219,884 09/07/2005 Jong-Sang Won 49395 1777
1609 7590 06/25/2013
ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.
1300 19TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON,, DC 20036
EXAMINER
CHEN, JUNPENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2013 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 JONG-SANG WON and HWAN-GEE JANG
____________

Appeal 2011-001942
Application 11/219,884
Technology Center 2600
____________

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

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001942
Application 11/219,884

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-13, 15-25, and 27-60. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to changing an operation mode of a mobile
communication terminal based on an opening direction of a folder cover of
the terminal (Spec. ¶ [002]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for changing an operation mode in a
mobile communication terminal comprising a main housing and
a folder cover, the folder cover being movable with respect to
the main housing in a first and second opening directions with
respect to first and second hinge axes, respectively, the method
comprising the steps of:

outputting a sense signal based on an opening direction
of the folder when the folder is opened and the mobile
communication terminal powers on;

changing the operation mode based on the outputted
sense signal; and

changing a luminous color of at least one key based on
the operation mode.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Olodort

US Pat. Pub.
2005/0125570 A1
June 9, 2005
(filed Sept. 30, 2004)
Appeal 2011-001942
Application 11/219,884

3
Roeder

Nishijima

US Pat. Pub
2005/0253821 A1
US 7,187,958 B2
Nov. 17, 2005
(filed May 14, 2004)
Mar. 6, 2007
(filed Apr. 30, 2004)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-13, 15-25, 27-30, and 58-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olodort and Roeder.
Claims 31-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olodort, Roeder, and Nishijima.

ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend the position of one assembly
relative to another assembly in a portable communication device as
disclosed in Olodort does not teach or suggest the opening direction of a
folder of a mobile communication terminal, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br.
6-7). Appellants further contend Olodort does not teach or suggest using a
sense signal based on the opening direction of a folder to change an
operation mode of a mobile communication terminal, as in claim 1 (App. Br.
7-9).
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments and further details
the grounds of rejection (Ans. 24-27). Specifically, the Examiner finds
Olodort’s portable communication device has a position sensor which
automatically senses the physical position of the display assembly relative to
the keyboard assembly, including different open positions of the display
relative to the keyboard, which meets the limitation of “an opening direction
of the folder”, as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 24-26; Olodort, ¶ [0103]; Figs. 3A-
Appeal 2011-001942
Application 11/219,884

4
3E). Further, the Examiner reasonably construes the claim 1 language
“changing the operation mode” broadly to read on change the display in
Olodort’s personal communication device from portrait mode to landscape
mode based on the position sensor’s detection of the position of the display
relative to the keyboard (Ans. 25-27). We find the Examiner fully responds
to Appellants’ contentions, and we adopt the Examiner’s underlying factual
findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness as our own.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Olodort’s Figures 3A-3E are
unrelated to the disclosure in paragraph [0103], and thus Olodort does not
disclose using the position sensor to detect the positions shown in Figures
3A-3E (see Reply Br. 4-6). However, Olodort discloses the position sensor
“automatically senses the position of the display assembly relative to the
keyboard assembly and which, in response to detecting a change from voice
phone mode to full keyboard mode, or vice versa, switches the orientation of
text on the display in those embodiments which have such switches of
orientation” (Olodort, ¶ [0103]) (emphasis added). Olodort is replete with
examples of embodiments of personal communication devices which can
open into numerous positions, thus causing a switch in the orientation of the
display, including the embodiment shown in Figures 3A and 3B (See, e.g.,
Olodort, Figs. 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 8A, 8B, 9, and 10). Thus, we see no error in
the Examiner’s findings regarding Olodort’s position sensor. Appellants
also disagree with the Examiner’s construction of the claim 1 language
“changing the operation mode,” and point to Figure 10D of the present
invention, which shows a display with a list of functions, including “EDIT
E-MAIL,” as an example of an “operation mode” as claimed (see Reply Br.
6-7). However, this example does not show that “changing the operation
Appeal 2011-001942
Application 11/219,884

5
mode” is limited to changing which functions are presented in a display and
excludes changing the orientation of the display. Thus, we see no error in
the Examiner’s construction of this claim language.
We are therefore not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2-13, 15-25, and 27-60 not specifically argued separately.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13, 15-25, and 27-60
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13, 15-25, and
27-60.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tkl