Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 10, 2020

2019002465 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2020)

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.
15/140,368 04/27/2016 Ikjae Jeon SAMS06-16022 2898
135249 7590 12/10/2020
Docket Clerk - SEC
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
EXAMINER
LHYMN, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2020 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IKJAE JEON, KWANG-SEAB KIM, and SEUNG-HO LEE

Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
Technology Center 2600

Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, NABEEL U. KHAN, and MICHAEL J.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s Specification describes situations where animation effects
are applied to user interfaces of electronic devices in response to a user
input. See Spec. ¶¶ 8, 66. One example would be the animation effect of
rotating an image on a display in response to a user rotating the electronic
device. Spec. ¶ 66. This animation may take a specific amount of time,
which the Specification refers to as “animation operation time.” See Spec.
68. The electronic device may control and change the animation operation
time based on, for example, battery state information and power
management information. See Spec. ¶¶ 69–70.
When the battery level is greater than 80% and a user rotates a display
from portrait to landscape orientation, the animation operation time of screen
rotation may take one second to rotate the image from an initial position to
the final position. Spec. ¶ 68. The screen rotation animation from initial
position to final position includes numerous intermediary frames or “sheets
of images” being displayed at regular intervals (e.g., at 0.05 second
intervals) during the one second animation time. Spec. ¶ 68. When,
however, the battery level is less than 50%, the electronic device may
change the animation operation time from one second to 0.5 seconds. Spec.
¶¶ 72, 96, 97, 100, 101. With the sheets of images being displayed in .05
second intervals, the number of images displayed during a rotation
animation time of 0.5 seconds would be half that of the number of image
displayed during a one second animation time. Spec. ¶¶ 100–101. In this
way battery state information is taken into account when displaying user
interface animations.
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
3
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for operating an electronic device, the
method comprising:
detecting an event for changing a display direction of a
screen;
in response to detecting the event for changing the display
direction of the screen, identifying a battery operation mode of
the electronic device;
determining an operation time of an animation effect
associated with the change of the display direction based on the
identified battery operation mode; and
displaying a user interface to which the animation effect
indicating the change of the display direction is applied based on
the determined operation time.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Chandley US 2006/0101293 A1 May 11, 2006
Bull US 2009/0058842 A1 Mar. 5, 2009
Oldengott US 2012/0139924 A1 June 7, 2012
Yamano US 2015/0213580 A1 July 30, 2015
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3–8, 10, 12–17, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yamano, Bull, and Chandley. Final Act.
4–21.
2. Claims 2, 9, 11, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Yamano, Bull, Chandley, and Oldengott. Final
Act. 22–24.
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
4
OPINION
Claims 1, 10, and 19
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent claims that recite similar
limitations. Appellant argues these claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 10–
27. We take claim 1 as representative.
The Examiner finds the combination of Yamano, Bull, and Chandley
teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 5–7. Yamano
relates to controlling the display of a device, such as a watch or bracelet,
based on the position of the device. Yamano ¶¶ 3–10. Bull relates to
controlling the display output of a device to conserve power. Bull, Abstract.
Finally, Chandley relates to power management of mobile computer
displays. Chandley, Abstract. The Examiner finds that in response to a
change in the position of a display unit of a bracelet or watch, Yamano
changes the orientation of the screen from portrait mode to landscape mode
or vice versa. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Yamano ¶¶ 61–68, 127–132). The
Examiner further relies on Bull’s teaching of monitoring a device parameter,
such as a device’s remaining battery power, in response to an application
being launched, and then, based on a state of the device parameter (e.g., high
or low remaining battery power), displaying either a full animation or a
simplified animation of the application. Final Act. 6 (citing Bull, ¶ 25,
claims 5–6, Fig. 5). Finally, the Examiner relies on Chandley’s teaching of
various operating modes, including normal use when on battery, and another
mode for when battery life needs to be conserved. Final Act. 6 (citing
Chandley ¶ 5).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has used improper hindsight in
rejecting the claims. Appeal Br. 12. Specifically, Appellant argues that
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
5
“none of the references teach using a battery operation mode or that such
would be detected.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant takes issue with the
Examiner’s combination of Bull with Chandley and especially with the
Examiner’s finding that Bull’s device parameters, such as remaining battery
power, are analogous to Chandley’s teaching of battery operation modes.
For example, according to Appellant, “the parameters of Bull merely relate
to characteristics of an electronic device, such as the remaining power of the
electronic device . . . . Characteristics or parameters of the device are not
operating modes similar to those of Chandley as asserted by the Examiner.”
Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues that the parameters of Bull do not relate to
the battery operation modes of Chandley. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues
“the parameters of Bull do not correspond to a user selected a profile as
taught by Chandley.” Appeal Br. 17. Instead, Appellant argues, “the
Examiner utilizes the Appellant’s disclosure as a roadmap not only to
combine the teachings of Yamana, Bull, and Chandley by simply asserting
that the device parameters of Bull that correspond to the operating modes as
taught by Chandley, ‘such that in response to detecting the event for
changing the display direction, as taught by Yamano, a battery operation
mode is identified.’” Appeal Br. 17.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Bull explicitly states,
and Appellant admits, that the remaining battery power of a device is a
device parameter that Bull monitors to determine whether to display a full
animation or a simplified animation. Bull ¶ 25. Chandley further discloses
that a device can operate in “different modes of use” such as when the
device is plugged-in, or when the device is in normal battery use, or when a
device conserves battery life in order to maintain maximum battery life.
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
6
Chandley ¶ 5. We agree with the Examiner that monitoring the remaining
battery power of a device and determining the operation of that device (by
displaying either a full or simplified animation) in response to such a
parameter corresponds to Chandley’s “different modes of use” based on
whether battery life should be conserved. The Examiner finds that one of
ordinary skill would have combined Bull with Chandley in order to conserve
battery life. Ans. 7. Thus, we determine that the Examiner’s rejection is not
based on hindsight reasoning but rather on the teachings of the prior art
references themselves.
Appellant argues “none of the cited references teaches or suggests ‘in
response to detecting the event for changing the display direction of the
screen, identifying a battery operation mode of the electronic device.”
Appeal Br. 18. Appellant argues “Yamano merely relates to orienting a
screen display according to the position of the device. Yamano does not
teach or suggest in response to detecting the event for changing the display
direction of the screen identifying a battery operation mode of the electronic
device.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant argues “Bull does not monitor the
parameters in response to an activity such as a changing of the screen
orientation.” Appeal Br. 20. Instead, according to Appellant, “Bull teaches
monitoring a device parameter based on whether a second application class
is entered and not detecting the event for changing the display direction of
the screen, as recited in Claim 1.” Appeal Br. 20. Further Appellant argues
“Chandley does not teach or suggest that, in response to an event, a battery
operation mode is detected. As disclosed in Claim 1 of Chandley, reducing
power consumed is based on a power-related policy. . . . Chandley merely
discloses adjusting the animation after a power-related policy is already
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
7
selected. There is no disclosure in Chandley that suggests that the power-
related policy is identified after detecting the event for changing the display
direction of the screen.” Appeal Br. 23.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s
arguments fail to take into account the Examiner’s findings as a whole. The
Examiner finds that Yamano changes the orientation of a screen in response
to the change in position of the display unit of a watch. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner further finds Bull identifies or monitors the state of a device
parameter, for example the state of the device’s battery power, in response to
an application being entered or launched on the device. Final Act. 6 (citing
Bull, ¶ 25, claims 5–6, Fig. 5). The Examiner further finds that based on the
state of the device parameter (i.e., the battery power), Bull displays either a
full animation or a simplified animation of the application. Finally, the
Examiner finds Chandley discloses various battery operation modes. Thus,
the combined disclosures of Yamano, Bull, and Chandley teach that, in
response to detecting an event for changing the display orientation of a
screen (as taught by Yamano), identifying a battery operation mode (as
taught by Bull and Chandley). Appellant’s argument that Bull monitors a
device parameter based on whether a second application is entered rather
than detecting an event for changing the display orientation of the screen
attacks Bull separately, without addressing the combination of Bull with
Yamano, as described above.
Appellant next argues that the prior art references do not teach
“identifying a battery operation mode of the electronic device.” Appeal Br.
20–23. For example, Appellant argues “Chandley discloses that a user can
set up and select a profile for (i) a plugged-in state, (ii) normal use when on
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
8
battery, and (iii) when battery life needs to be conserved. Setting up and
selecting different profiles based on whether a device is plugged in or
powered by a battery does not teach or suggest identifying a battery
operation mode.” Appeal Br. 22. According to Appellant, “[m]erely stating
that different power profiles are used does not teach or suggest that a battery
operation mode is identified, let alone a battery operation mode is identified
in response to detecting an event for changing the display direction.”
Appeal Br. 22. Furthermore, Appellant argues that Chandley merely
allocates different power levels to different windows of the same display,
and that this does not teach identifying a battery operation mode of the
electronic device. Appeal Br. 23.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s argument
that Chandley teaches allocating different power levels to different windows
is unpersuasive because the Examiner is not relying on this aspect of
Chandley’s disclosure in the Examiner’s findings. See Final Act. 6 (citing
Chandley ¶ 5). Chandley discloses that different settings of a device, such
as backlight settings and inactivity timer settings, can be used based on
different modes of use. Chandley ¶ 5. These settings are stored in profiles.
The modes of use include a “plugged-in state,” “normal use when on
battery,” and “maximum battery life” for when battery life must be
conserved. Chandley ¶ 5. We agree with the Examiner that these different
modes of use, to which the different setting profiles correspond, teach the
claimed “battery operation mode of the electronic device” as recited by
claim 1.
Appellant argues “[n]o portion of Yamano, Bull, and Chandley
appears to teach or suggest determining an operation time of an animation
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
9
effect.” Appeal Br. 24. According to Appellant, “[s]ince no art is cited with
respect to the claim element of ‘determining an operation time of an
animation effect,’ the Appellant submits that the rejection is factually and
legally deficient.” Appeal Br. 24. Appellant argues that determining
whether a “full animation” or “simplified animation” is displayed, as
disclosed by Bull, does not teach determining an operation time of an
animation effect.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds
that Yamano teaches that when the view of a display is changed from
portrait view to landscape view, the change is displayed as an animation
from a first orientation to a second orientation in a stepwise manner. Final
Act. 5 (citing Yamano ¶ 65); Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on Bull’s
disclosure of using either full animations or simplified animations based on
the remaining power in a device’s battery. Final Act. 6 (citing Bull, ¶ 25,
claims 5–6, Fig. 5). Bull discloses an example of an application where, in
response to a user selecting certain video files, the application displays
excerpts of the video file in a preview pane. Bull ¶ 67. In response to a first
state of the device (e.g., sufficient remaining battery power) Bull displays a
full animation of the excerpt by continuously looping the excerpt of the
video file. Bull ¶ 70. In response to a second state of the device (e.g., low
battery power) a simplified animation is displayed instead, which “can
include ending the loop of an excerpt of a video file after the excerpt has
shown one time.” Bull ¶ 72. We determine that looping a video file once,
rather than multiple times, would teach one of ordinary skill in the art that
the simplified animation has a shorter operation time than the full animation.
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
10
Thus, we disagree with Appellant that the combination of Yamano and Bull
does not teach determining an operation time of an animation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10, and
19.
Claims 3 and 12
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and claim 12 depends from claim 10.
Claim 3 recites “detecting an event for changing the display direction of a
screen comprises determining, using at least one sensor, whether the
electronic device is rotated.” Claim 12 similarly recites “wherein the
processor is configured to determine, using the at least one sensor, whether
the electronic device is rotated, and determine that the event is detected in
response to detecting a rotation of the electronic device.” Appellant argues
claims 3 and 12 as a group. See Appeal Br. 27–29.
Appellant argues that Yamano detects the rotation and position of the
user’s arm to change the orientation of the display. Appeal Br. 28.
According to Appellant “acquiring rotational information and detecting a
rotation position of a body part of a user, does not teach or suggest detecting
an event that includes determining whether the electronic device is rotated.”
Appeal Br. 28.
We disagree. Yamano discloses that the “posture detection unit 110
detects a change in the posture due to the turning over or rotation of the arm.
The posture detection unit 110 is configured to include, for example, an
acceleration sensor or gyro sensor.” Yamano ¶ 59. The sensors are
contained in the bracelet device itself and thus, as a matter of logic, are
measuring their own movement and rotation in order to determine the
rotation of the user’s arm. Moreover, even if we were to assume that
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
11
Yamano is somehow detecting the rotation of the user’s arm without
detecting the rotation of the device itself, such rotation of the user’s arm
would result in the rotation of the bracelet device being worn on the user’s
arm.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 12.
Claims 4 and 13
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and claim 13 depends from claim 10.
Claim 4 recites “herein the at least one sensor is at least one of an
acceleration sensor, a gyro sensor, a geomagnetic sensor, or an image
sensor.” Claim 13 recites a similar limitation. Appellant argues claims 4
and 13 as a group. See Appeal Br. 29–30.
The Examiner relies on Yamano’s disclosure that the “posture
detection unit 110 detects a change in the posture due to the turning over or
rotation of the arm. The posture detection unit 110 is configured to include,
for example, an acceleration sensor or gyro sensor” as teaching the
limitations of claim 4. Final Act. 8 (citing Yamano ¶ 59).
Appellant argues “an acceleration sensor or a gyro sensor does not
teach or suggest a geomagnetic sensor or an image sensor. An acceleration
sensor is not a geomagnetic sensor or an image sensor. Similarly, a gyro
sensor is not a geomagnetic sensor or an image sensor.” Appeal Br. 29–30.
Appellant’s argument is incommensurate with the scope of claims 4
and 13. Claim 4, for example, requires that the one sensor be “at least one
of an acceleration sensor, a gyro sensor, a geomagnetic sensor, or an image
sensor.” A disclosure of any one of the recited types of sensors would
satisfy the claim limitation. E.g., Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (“When a claim covers several structures . . . as alternatives, the
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
12
claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures . . . within the scope of
the claim is known in the prior art.”). Yamano discloses both an
acceleration sensor and a gyro sensor, thus explicitly disclosing the
limitations of claim 4 and claim 13.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 13.
Claims 5 and 14
Claim 5 ultimately depends from independent claim 1 and claim 14
ultimately depends from independent claim 10. Claim 5 recites “wherein the
operation time is determined based on at least one of battery level
information or battery use amount information.” Claim 14 recites similar
limitations. Appellant argues claims 5 and 14 as a group. Appeal Br. 30–
33.
Appellant relies on arguments that are similar to those made with
respect to claim 1. For example, Appellant argues “Bull contains no
disclosure, teaching, or suggestion of a determined operation time, as
discussed above with respect to Claim 1. The Examiner appears to be
resorting to hindsight construction to read elements in the art that are neither
taught nor suggested by the art itself.” Appeal Br. 31. Appellant also argues
that “[m]erely monitoring a device parameter, where the device parameter is
‘battery level information and/or battery use amount information, as asserted
by the Examiner’ as fails to teach or suggest both (1) identifying a battery
operation mode, and (2) determine an operation time of an animation effect,
based on the identified battery operation mode.” Appeal Br. 32.
We find these arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons explained
above in our analysis of claim 1. Specifically, we disagree with Appellant
that Bull does not teach determining an operation time of an animation based
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
13
on a battery operation mode. As explained above, we agree with the
Examiner that Chandley teaches battery operation modes and that by
monitoring the remaining power of a battery, Bull, combined with Chandley,
also teaches battery operation modes. See Final Act. 6 (citing Chandley ¶ 5).
As we further explained above, Bull plays a repeating loop of an excerpt of a
video file to provide a preview of the video file. Bull ¶ 67. Based on a
device parameter, such as the remaining battery power of the device, Bull
may play a full animation of the repeating loop of the excerpted video or it
may play a simplified animation consisting of only one loop of the excerpted
video. Bull ¶¶ 69–72. One loop of an excerpted video file would have a
shorter operation time than the repeating loop. Thus, Bull teaches
determining an operation time of an animation effect based on an identifying
battery operation mode.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14.
Claims 6 and 15
Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1 and claim 15 depends
from independent claim 10. Claim 6 recites “wherein determining the
operation time of the animation effect comprises: selecting a control value
corresponding to the identified battery operation mode among a plurality of
control values; and changing a preset operation time for the animation effect
based on the selected control value, wherein each of the plurality of control
values corresponds to a different battery operation mode.” Claim 15 recites
similar limitations. Appellant argues claims 6 and 15 as a group. See
Appeal Br. 33–37.
The Examiner relies on Chandley’s disclosure of a weighting factor,
which depends on power consumption, to determine how much brightness to
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
14
give each displayed window. Final Act. 9 (citing Chandley ¶¶ 5, 36–38).
The Examiner also relies on Chandley’s disclosure that animations occurring
on a device may be slowed down or stopped, also based on power
consumption. Final Act. 9 (citing Chandley ¶ 48). The Examiner finds
Chandley’s weighting factor teaches the claimed control value.
Appellant argues, “The Examiner used Appellant’s disclosure as a
roadmap to selectively pick and choose words from the reference in isolation
without consideration of the elements of claim 1 as a whole.” Appeal Br.
34. Appellant argues the Examiner fails to identify a motivation to combine
and fails to explain how one of ordinary skill would predict the results of
modifying Chandley’s weighting factor to teach the claim limitation.
Appeal Br. 35. Appellant further argues, “A weighting scheme that
determines how much weight to give to each window on a display with
respect to power consumption, does not teach or suggest that determining
the operation time of the animation effect includes selecting a control value
corresponding to the identified battery operation mode.” Appeal Br. 36.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Chandley’s weighting factor teaches a control value.
Chandley clearly teaches that the weight given to various operations of the
device (e.g., brightness of windows) depends on power consumption.
Chandley ¶ 36. Chandley also teaches that animations may be changed or
stopped, as an additional example of operations that can be modified based
on power consumption. Chandley ¶ 48. This, combined with Bull’s similar
teaching that animations may be looped once or multiple times based on
battery power, would teach a control value, i.e., Chandley’s weighting
factor, that corresponds to a battery operation mode, as taught by Chandley,
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
15
that is used to change an operation time for an animation effect, as taught by
the combination of both Bull and Chandley. The Examiner explains that one
of ordinary skill would be motivated to make the aforementioned
modifications in order to conserve power, a goal of both Bull and Chandley.
See Final Act. 9–10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 15.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17
For claims 7, 8, 16, and 17, Appellant relies on arguments made for
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 37–39. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 for the reasons stated in our analysis of
claim 1.
Claims 2, 11, and 20
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, claim 11 depends from claim 10, and
claim 20 depends from claim 19. Claim 2 recites “determining a number of
at least one frame constructing the user interface based on the determined
operation time; and constructing the user interface based on the determined
number of the at least one frame.” Claims 11 and 20 recite similar
limitations. Appellant argues claims 2, 11, and 20 as a group. Appeal Br.
40–41.
The Examiner finds the combination of Yamano, Bull, Chandley, and
Oldengott teach the limitations of claim 2. Final Act. 22. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Oldengott teaches “determining a number of at least one
frame constructing the user interface based on the determined operation
time; and constructing the user interface based on the determined number of
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
16
the at least one frame.” Final Act. 22 (citing Oldengott ¶¶ 18, 22, 29, 30,
Figs. 6, 7).
Appellant argues “Oldengot[t] does not disclose determining a
number of frames constructing the user interface and constructing the user
interface based on the determined number frames.” Appeal Br. 41.
According to Appellant “reducing the time needed to display a plurality of
animations in a queue reduces the time each is displayed ‘without the risk of
skipping or missing needed information within the animations.’ Reducing
time needed for a plurality of animations does not teach or suggest
determining a number of at least one frame constructing the user interface.”
Appeal Br. 41. Clarifying further, Appellant argues that in Oldengott “by
adjusting the duration of time that a frame is displayed all the frames in the
queue are played, albeit in a reduced duration.” Reply Br. 18. The claim,
however, “can vary the number of frames that are constructed on the user
interface.” Reply Br. 18.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. As pointed out by the
Examiner, Appellant’s argument is incommensurate with the scope of claim
2. Claim 2 does not require varying the number of frames that are
constructed on the user interface, as argued by Appellant. Instead, claim 2
requires “determining a number of at least one frame constructing the user
interface based on the determined operation time; and constructing the user
interface based on the determined number of the at least one frame.” Thus,
Appellant’s argument does not properly address the Examiner’s finding that
“Oldengott acknowledges that there can be instances where the timeframe of
an animation has to be reduced (i.e. reduced based on the determined
operation time). As a result, a number of at least one frame constructing the
Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
17
user interface (such as when animations are being displayed) is determined,
such to make sure the dynamic adaption and timing of animations is satisfied
in whatever timeframe is currently at play.” Ans. 8.2
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 11, and
20.
Claims 9 and 18
For claims 9 and 18, Appellant relies on arguments presented for
claim 1. Appeal Br. 42. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9
and 18 for the reasons stated in our analysis of claim 1.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–8, 10,
12–17, 19
103(a) Yamano, Bull,
Chandley
1, 3–8,
10, 12–
17, 19

2, 9, 11, 18,
20
103(a) Yamano, Bull,
Chandley, Oldengott
2, 9, 11,
18, 20

Overall
Outcome
1–20

2 Moreover, Oldengott’s disclosures, when combined with Bull, also teach or
suggest the claim limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that Bull’s disclosure of looping a video excerpt, either only once
or multiple times, based on a device parameter such as battery power,
teaches determining a number of frames in the animation based on the
operation time of the animation. Bull ¶¶ 70, 72, 25, 28. A video looped
only once would necessarily have fewer frames than the same video looped
multiple times.

Appeal 2019-002465
Application 15/140,368
18
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED