GOOGLE LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 22, 2021

2020003870 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2021)

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.
14/996,346 01/15/2016 Bernardo Núñez Rojas GOOGLE
3.0F-1954 [6618]
8295
159845 7590 11/22/2021
GOOGLE LLC
Botos Churchill IP Law LLP
430 Mountain Avenue
Suite 401
New Providence, NJ 07090
EXAMINER
HAILU, TADESSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2021 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):
google@bciplaw.com
pto@bciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNARDO NÚÑEZ ROJAS
Appeal 2020-003870
Application 14/996,346
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9–12, 16, 17, and 21–28, all of the pending
claims. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 3–5, 8, 13–15, and 18–20 are canceled. Id.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Google LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003870
Application 14/996,346

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to an “adaptable user interface” for a “dual
screen device.” Spec. Title.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented content presentation method for use
in a multi-display computer system, the method comprising:
generating, by one or more processors, a first set of content
items for presentation on a first display device of the multi-
display computer system, the first set of content items including
a virtual keyboard and a virtual mousepad configured to receive
input information from a user of the multi-display computer
system;
generating, by the one or more processors, a second set of
content items for presentation on a second display device of the
multi-display computer system;
upon receiving the input information, the one or more
processing devices modifying at least one of the first and second
sets of content items, wherein the received input information
indicates that orientations of both the first and second display
devices have changed as detected by one or more position and
orientation sensors of the multi-display computer system, the
orientation change indicating a concurrent physical rotation of
both the first and second display devices; and
presenting the modified content items on at least one of the
first and second display devices.
Appeal 2020-003870
Application 14/996,346

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Number Date
Hisano US 2006/0034042 A1 Feb. 16, 2006
Kikuchi US 2014/0333950 A1 Nov. 13, 2014
Kwak US 2014/0101577 A1 Apr. 10, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims References Final Act.
1, 2, 6, 7, 9–12, 16, 24 Kwak, Hisano 2
17, 21–23, 25–28 Kwak, Hisano, Kikuchi 7
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner err in finding Kwak teaches or suggests the
“upon receiving . . . ” and “presenting . . . ” limitations recited in claim 1?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding Hisano teaches or suggests
“replacing at least one of the virtual keyboard or the virtual mousepad with
an element of interest,” as recited in claim 2?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding Kwak teaches or suggests the
“detecting . . . ” and “in response . . . ” limitations recited in claim 17?
4. Does the Examiner err in finding Kikuchi teaches or suggests
“in response to receipt of account authentication information, at least one of
the virtual keyboard and the virtual mousepad are replaced by one or more
elements of interest,” as recited in claim 21?
5. Does the Examiner err in finding Kikuchi teaches or suggests
“upon logging in the user, at least one of the virtual keyboard and the virtual
mousepad are replaced by one or more elements of interest,” as recited in
claim 26?
Appeal 2020-003870
Application 14/996,346

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9–12, 16, and 24
Appellant argues that “nothing in Kwak discloses or suggests
‘modifying at least one of the first and second sets of content items’ upon
receiving information that ‘indicates that orientations of both the first and
second display devices have changed’ according to ‘a concurrent physical
rotation of both the first and second display devices’.” Appeal Br. 7
(quoting claim 1). “By merely citing to paragraph 0306 of Kwak without
any explanation, the Examiner has failed to show how Kwak actually reads
on the claimed features.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relies
on paragraph 306 of Kwak, which discloses:
Although not illustrated in FIG. 28, the sensor 185 of the multi
display apparatus 100 may additionally include one or more [of]
a gravity sensor (not illustrated) which can examine which
direction gravity acts,
a gyro sensor (not illustrated) which can recognize six axes
in total by measuring rotation of the multi display
apparatus 100 respectively with the acceleration sensor
185-3, [and]
an orientation sensor (not illustrated) which can
automatically rotate and arrange contents by automatically
detecting horizontal and vertical frames of contents such
as images . . . .
Kwak ¶ 306 (formatting added); Ans. 16. Thus, Kwak discloses
automatically rotating content based on sensors detecting orientation. See
also Kwak ¶ 320 (“Further, expanding, rotating, moving and dividing of the
screens displayed on the first display 110a and the second display 110b may
be performed independently.” (emphasis added)). We therefore agree with
Appeal 2020-003870
Application 14/996,346

5
the Examiner that it would have been obvious that “as a result of . . .
manipulating the device (e.g. rotating the device), the displayed contents are
modified” (e.g., rotating the displayed contents to match the rotation of the
device detected by the sensors). Ans. 16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,2 and
claims 6, 7, 9–12, 16, and 24, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 2–3; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites “replacing at least one of the virtual keyboard or the
virtual mousepad with an element of interest.”3

2 Claim 1 recites modifying the screens upon receiving “the input
information.” The antecedent basis for this input information is “a virtual
keyboard and a virtual mousepad configured to receive input information
from a user.” Thus, the received input information comes from a user via a
keyboard or mousepad. Yet claim 1 also recites “the received input
information indicates that orientations of both the first and second display
devices have changed as detected by one or more position and orientation
sensors.” In the event of further prosecution, Appellant may wish to
clarify—and the Examiner may wish to consider the adequacy of written
description for—whether the modification of the screens is triggered by
(1) keyboard or mousepad input by the user or (2) orientation sensors. See
also Spec. ¶ 42 (discussing modifying a display during a rotation based on
information from sensors, but not mentioning keyboard or mousepad input).
3 There appears to be an error in the reproduction of claim 2 in the Claims
Appendix. Compare Amendment (Oct. 12, 2018) (“modifying at least one
of the first and second sets of content items”), with Appeal Br. 14
(“modifying at least one of the first” yet omitting “set of content items”).
Moreover, Appellant may wish to delete “at least one of” entirely. Whereas
claim 1 recited modifying “at least one of” two possible sets (the first and
the second), dependent claim 2 only recites one set (the first).
Appeal 2020-003870
Application 14/996,346

6
The Examiner finds “Hisano . . . discloses replacing at least one of the
virtual keyboard or the virtual mousepad with an element of interest (see
Hisano, for example as illustrate[d] in Fig. 13 the virtual keyboard and the
virtual mouse are switched into various user interface elements or icons[)].”
Ans. 18. Thus, the Examiner determines “it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to interchange or swap or replace any
displayed element with another displayed element including virtual
keyboard and mousepad or mouse icon between the first and second
display[s] of Hisano.” Id. at 18–19.
Appellant counters that “Hisano fails to teach what the Examiner
asserts.” Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant contends:
While Fig. 13 of Hisano illustrates a “notebook personal
computer”, nothing in the figure or the accompanying
description teaches or suggests that when the “received input
information indicates that orientations of both the first and
second display devices have changed”, the modification includes
“replacing at least one of the virtual keyboard or the virtual
mousepad with an element of interest”.
Appeal Br. 10.
We agree with Appellant. Although Figure 13 of Hisano illustrates a
dual screen device with a virtual keyboard displayed on one of the screens,
the Examiner fails to point to anything in Hisano (or any other reference)
teaching or suggesting replacing that virtual keyboard with an “element of
interest,” let alone doing so when the orientation of the devices have
changed as required by claim 1, from which claim 2 depends.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Appeal 2020-003870
Application 14/996,346

7
Claims 17 and 25
Independent claim 17 recites:
detecting a concurrent rotation of both the first and second
display devices of the multi-display computer system;
in response to detecting the concurrent rotation, swapping
presentation of the selected content from the first display device
to the second display device, and swapping presentation of the
control elements from the second display device to the first
display device . . . .
Although the Examiner cites to Kwak’s disclosure of “modifying the
displayed contents on the second screen according to a user manipulation . . .
performed on the first screen” (Kwak ¶ 21) and “rotating” a screen (id.
¶¶ 306, 320), the Examiner fails to explain how any portion of Kwak
discloses swapping the presentation of elements between the two displays
(e.g., displaying the virtual keyboard on the other screen when the device is
rotated 180 degrees). Ans. 17–18; Non-Final Act. 7.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 and its
dependent claim 25.
Claims 21–23
Claim 21 recites a “log-in-interface” and “in response to receipt of
account authentication information, at least one of the virtual keyboard and
the virtual mousepad are replaced by one or more elements of interest.”
Kikuchi discloses a virtual keyboard on various screens to enter a user
ID and password. Kikuchi Figs. 6 (user ID), 7 (password).
The Examiner determines “it is clear that once the user is successful in
entering his/her id and password, the image forming apparatus 10 is ready to
execute any one of the application[s] such as scanning, printing, copying or
Appeal 2020-003870
Application 14/996,346

8
faxing. That is to say the login screen is replaced with any one of the
application[s].” Ans. 20.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not explain
sufficiently how Kikuchi (or any other reference) supports this. Even if it
were obvious that entering a user ID and password results in the system
being “ready to execute” an “application such as scanning, printing, copying
or faxing” (Ans. 20), the Examiner has provided no explanation why the
keyboard would be replaced rather than, for example, only items on the
other screen.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 and its
dependent claims 22 and 23.
Claims 26–28
Claim 26 recites “upon logging in the user, at least one of the virtual
keyboard and the virtual mousepad are replaced by one or more elements of
interest.”
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs for reasons
substantially similar to those argued with respect to claim 21. Appeal
Br. 12; Ans. 20.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 and its
dependent claims 27 and 28.
Appeal 2020-003870
Application 14/996,346

9
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)
/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 7, 9–
12, 16, 24
103 Kwak, Hisano 1, 6, 7, 9–12,
16, 24
2
17, 21–23,
25–28
103 Kwak, Hisano,
Kikuchi
17, 21–23,
25–28
Overall
Outcome
1, 6, 7, 9–12,
16, 24
2, 17, 21–23,
25–28
TIME TO RESPOND
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2019). See 37
C.F.R. § 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART