Ex Parte YanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 201712942463 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/942,463 11/09/2010 Qifeng Yan 042933/398284 1735 10949 7590 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 EXAMINER EARLES, BRYAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2017 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): u sptomail @ alston .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte QIFENG YAN Appeal 2016-007257 Application 12/942,463 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-007257 Application 12/942,463 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—18, and 20—22. Final Act. 1. Claims 2 and 19 have been cancelled. App. Br. 12, 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claims 1 and 21 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and formatting added): 1. An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive information on presence of an object in a first position and in close proximity to a touch screen surface; receive indication of a display element currently associated with the object, the display element being displayed such that the display element appears displaced from the screen surface level in a z-direction substantially perpendicular to the screen surface; receive indication of a transition of the object from the first position to a second position, wherein the second position indicates the object is in contact with the screen surface', and cause the display element to change such that the display element is displayed substantially at the touch screen surface and is substantially in contact with the object in response to receiving indication of the transition. 2 Appeal 2016-007257 Application 12/942,463 21. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display element is displayed such that the display element appears to float above the screen surface level in the z-direction, and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receive an indication of a transition of the object from the first position to a third position, wherein the third position indicates that the object is in proximity to the touch screen surface without being in contact with the screen surface, and wherein the third position is displaced from the screen surface by a different distance than the first position; and cause the display element to change in response to receiving the indication of the transition to the third position such that the display element is displayed so as to appear displaced from the screen surface level in the z-direction by a different distance than in response to the object being in the first position. Rejections 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6—11, 15—18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US 2010/0095206 Al, published Apr. 15, 2010) and Ku et al. (US 2009/0315848 Al, published Dec. 24, 2009).1 1 Separate patentability is argued for claim 1 (App. Br. 7—10; Reply Br. 3 4) and claim 21 (Reply Br. 2). Separate patentability is not argued for claims 6—11, 15—18, 20, and 22. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal 2016-007257 Application 12/942,463 2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Ku, and Song et al. (EP 1739980 Al, published Jan. 3, 2007). 3. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Ku, Song, and Meijer et al. (US 2009/0102805 Al, published Apr. 23, 2009).2 Appellant’s Contentions 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: [T]he display elements of Kim do not appear to be displaced from the screen surface level in the z-direction, but instead appear to originate at the screen surface level and to extend outwardly from the screen surface level. Thus, the display elements of Kim always appear to remain in contact with the screen surface level and not to be displaced from the screen surface level. App. Br. 8 (emphasis added). 2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: The secondary references also fail to teach or suggest that the display element is displaced from the screen surface level in the z-direction. Ku merely discloses a two-dimensional user interface with no teaching or suggestion of the displacement of a display element from the screen surface level in the z-direction. 2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3—5 and 12—14. Thus, the rejections of these claims turn on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 4 Appeal 2016-007257 Application 12/942,463 App. Br. 8 (emphasis added). 3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: [T]he Official Action recognizes that Kim fails to disclose receiving an indication of a transition of the object from the first position to a second position with the second position indicating that the object is in contact with the screen surface and, instead, the Official Action cites Ku in regards to this recitation. ... As Kim admittedly fails to teach or suggest receiving an indication of a transition of the object from the first position to the second position in which the object is in contact with the screen surface, it logically follows that Kim also cannot teach or suggest causing the display element to change so as to be displayed substantially at the touch screen surface in response to receiving the indication of the transition to a second position in which the object is in contact with the screen surface. App. Br. 8—9 (emphasis added). 4. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: The independent claims do not merely recite that the display elements appear recessed relative to or appear to protrude from the screen. Instead, the independent claims recite that the display element appears displaced from the screen surface level in the z- direction. It is submitted that this recitation is not “vague” as alleged by the Examiner’s Answer on page 18. Moreover, Applicants disagree with the contention put forward by the Examiner’s Answer that “all information displayed on a screen is displayed such that the information is displaced from the screen surface level perpendicular to the screen.” Instead, the present application is both clear and consistent in its description of a display element appearing to be displaced from the screen surface level in the z-direction and illustrates in Figures la and lb and describes in paragraphs [0015] and [0029] that the display element appears to float above or be below the screen surface level. 5 Appeal 2016-007257 Application 12/942,463 Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added). 5. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: [Njeither Kim nor Ku nor any combination thereof teaches or suggests causing the display element to change so as to be displayed substantially at the touch screen surface in response to receiving the indication of the transition to a second position in which the object is in contact with the screen surface. Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added). 6. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: [T]he display elements of Kim are not taught or suggested to float above the screen surface level in the z-direction, as recited in Claim[] 21. Reply Br. 2. 7. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Ku also fails to teach or suggest that the display element appears to float above the screen surface level in the z-direction. Reply Br. 2. Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious for the reasons argued by Appellant? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 21 as being obvious for the reasons argued by Appellant? 6 Appeal 2016-007257 Application 12/942,463 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. As to Appellant’s above contention 1, we disagree. Appellant’s Specification states that the claimed “display elements” can be “graphical items” or “icons.” Spec. 2:29—30. The Examiner cites to Kim’s Figure 3. Final Act. 7. Our review of Figure 3 finds a widget 32 protruding from the screen with an upper surface showing an envelope graphical item. This upper surface graphical item is displaced from the screen surface level in a z-direction as required by claim 1. The widget also shows sides extending from this upper surface of the widget to the screen surface level. However, this is not precluded by claim 1. As to Appellant’s above contention 2, we disagree. Appellant’s Specification states that the claimed displacement is achieved by “causing] visualization of the display element closer to the screen surface” or “causing] visualization of the display element further away from the screen surface.” Spec. 10:25—32. The Examiner cites to Ku’s paragraphs 342—343. Final Act. 8. Our review of these paragraphs finds that they discuss adjusting the magnification of the selected object based on the distance of the proximity touch. Further, preceding paragraph 341 states that selected objects can be enlarged or minified. Such changes in magnification inherently cause objects to appear closer or further away, i.e., cause objects to appear displaced.3 Ku is a two-dimensional interface. However, this is of 3 See column 2, lines 31—35 of Torgerson et al. (US 9454283 Bl; iss. Sept. 27, 2016; filed June 11, 2008) (“For example, a “fish eye” focus may be 7 Appeal 2016-007257 Application 12/942,463 no moment as Kim teaches 3D image display and Appellant admits that 3D image displays are known for portable devices. Spec. 1:12—15. Although the rejection does not depend thereon, the 2D image magnifications of Ku are more than sufficient to suggest displacement in a 3D image display. As to Appellant’s above contention 3, we disagree. The premise of Appellant’s argument is that Kim fails to disclose a second position with the second position indicating that the object is in contact with the screen surface. This premise overlooks that Kim at paragraphs 100—101 explicitly teaches an embodiment where “the user may touch and select the desired widgets on the touchscreen 31.” Although the bulk of Kim is directed to embodiments where the screen is not touched, Kim’s disclosure and claimed invention are not so limited. As to Appellant’s above contention 4, we disagree. We agree with Appellant that claim 8 is not vague for using the term “displaced.” Rather, the claim term is simply broad. However, although we agree with Appellant’s argument, this argument does not serve to distinguish the claim over the prior art. That is, this argument is not relevant to the rejection before us. As to Appellant’s above contention 5, we disagree. As discussed above for contention 3, Appellant’s premise overlooks that Kim explicitly teaches a second position indicating that the object is in contact with the screen surface. Further, we also agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that Ku teaches receiving indication of a transition of an object from the first presented that magnifies items of importance to make them appear closer to a user while de-emphasizing items of lesser importance by shrinking them so as to appear farther away from the user”). 8 Appeal 2016-007257 Application 12/942,463 position to a second position wherein the second position indicates the object is in contact with the screen surface. Final Act. 8. As to Appellant’s above contentions 6 and 7, we disagree for the reasons discussed above as to contentions 1 and 2. CONCLUSION (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 3—18, and 20— 22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1, 3—18, and 20—22 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—18, and 20—22 are 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation