Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2019004657 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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.
14/450,409 08/04/2014 Koji SATO 70404.1911 8843
54072 7590 12/16/2020
SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA
C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
PAN, PHOEBE X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM
epreston@kbiplaw.com
uspto@kbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KOJI SATO
____________________

Appeal 2019-004657
Application 14/450,409
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
2 Claim 2 was canceled, and claims 9, 12, and 15 are indicated as containing
allowable subject matter. (Non-Final Act. 2, 10.)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed August 4, 2014,
Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”) mailed October 4, 2018, Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed January 30, 2019, and Examiner’s Answer
Appeal 2019-004657
Application 14/450,409

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to an interface device and an interface method
employing “a display unit that displays icons, a rotating unit that orders
changes in orientations of the icons, and an executing unit that orders
execution of applications corresponding to the icons,” wherein the display
unit “displays, upon accepting that the executing unit has specified an icon
and ordered execution of an application, a window with an orientation that
coincides with the orientation of the icon” such that users located around the
display view icons and windows in orientations comprehensible to each user.
(Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An interface device including:
a display to display on a screen at least one shortcut icon
that is an icon that points to an application program or a data
file; and
rotating circuitry to order changes in orientations of the at
least one shortcut icon around a z-axis of an x-y plane;
executing circuitry to select the at least one shortcut icon
and order launching the application program or the data file
associated with the at least one shortcut icon;
changing and displaying circuitry to change the
orientations of the at least one shortcut icon selected by the
executing circuitry without changing the orientation of shortcut
icons not selected by the executing circuitry and the orientation
of a background region relative to a standard orientation set for
the screen and display the changed orientations of the at least
one shortcut icon selected by the executing circuitry in response
to the rotating circuitry ordering the changes in the orientations

(“Ans.”) mailed March 21, 2019.
Appeal 2019-004657
Application 14/450,409

3
of the at least one shortcut icon selected by the executing
circuitry on the background region on the screen;
displaying circuitry to, upon accepting that the executing
circuitry has selected the at least one shortcut icon and ordered
launching the application program or the data file associated
with the at least one shortcut icon, display a window such that
an orientation of the window coincides with the orientation of
the at least one shortcut icon, and upon accepting that the
executing circuitry has selected the at least one shortcut icon
and in response to a user selection of the at least one shortcut
icon, rotate the at least one shortcut icon relative to the
orientation of the background region on the screen; and
a storage to store phase information that indicates the
orientations of the at least one shortcut icon relative to the
standard orientation set for the screen, wherein
the storage changes the phase information in response to
the rotating circuitry ordering the changes in the orientations of
the at least one shortcut icon,
upon accepting that the executing circuitry has selected
the at least one shortcut icon and ordered launching the
associated application program or data file associated with the
at least one shortcut icon, the executing circuitry reads the
phase information from the storage, and the display displays the
window in an orientation determined by the phase information
of the at least one shortcut icon that coincides with the
orientation of the at least one shortcut icon selected by the
executing circuitry, and
a plurality of shortcut icons are created for a same
application program or data file, and each of the plurality of
shortcut icons for the same application program or data file has
a different orientation.
(Appeal Br. 13–20 (Claims App.).)

REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
Claims 1, 3–8, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
on Blythe et al. (US 2006/0156249 A1, published July 13, 2006) (“Blythe”),
Appeal 2019-004657
Application 14/450,409

4
Sakai (US 2014/0354695 A1, published Dec. 4, 2014) (“Sakai”), GiiKS,
Microsoft Surface 2 (Démonstration de la nouvelle table tactile Microsoft
Surface 2 présentée lors du CES 2011), YOUTUBE (Jan. 8, 2011),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b8sHd5BKRs (“Giiks”), and Lyle et al.
(US 2009/0106667 A1, published Apr. 23, 2009) (“Lyle”). (Non-Final Act.
4–9.)
Claims 10, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Blythe, Sakai, Giiks, Lyle, and Dickman et al. (US 5,877,765, issued Mar. 2,
1999) (“Dickman”). (Non-Final Act. 9–10.)

ANALYSIS
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Non-Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends the
combination of Blythe, Sakai, Giiks, and Lyle does not teach displaying
circuitry to, “upon accepting that the executing circuitry has selected the
Appeal 2019-004657
Application 14/450,409

5
at least one shortcut icon and in response to a user selection of the at
least one shortcut icon, rotate the at least one shortcut icon relative to
the orientation of the background region on the screen.” (Appeal Br. 7,
9–11.) In particular, Appellant argues
[a]s the Examiner admitted in the outstanding Office Action,
Blythe and Sakai fail to teach or suggest the GUI object can be
shortcut icons. Accordingly, Blythe and Sakai do not teach or
suggest any displaying circuitry that can rotate a shortcut icon
relative to the orientation of the background region on the
screen, as required by Appellant’s claimed invention. Giiks
teaches a user can change the orientation of objects such as a
tool bar or an image using two simultaneous touches. But, Giiks
is silent as to any ability or displaying circuitry that can, upon
accepting that the executing circuitry has selected the at least
one shortcut icon and in response to a user selection of the at
least one shortcut icon, rotate a shortcut icon relative to the
orientation of the background region of the screen.

(Id. at 11.) We do not agree.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Blythe,
Sakai, Giiks, and Lyle teaches and suggests Appellant’s claimed
manipulation of “at least one shortcut icon” by displaying and executing
circuitry, and by a user. (Ans. 3–4; Non-Final Act. 3–6.) Particularly, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings that Giiks’ touch icons—including a text
search box, and link icons used to launch or activate a map application or a
search engine interface (e.g., Bing)—teach the claimed “at least one shortcut
icon.” (Ans. 3–4; Non-Final Act. 3, 5–6; see Giiks (at 1:30–2:15, 2:48–
3:33).) Claim 1 recites that the “at least one shortcut icon” is “an icon that
points to an application program or a data file” (see Appeal Br. 13 (claim
1)), and Appellant’s Specification describes shortcut icons as “[h]andles
[that] are set with a one-to-one correspondence to the content (files)” (Spec.
Appeal 2019-004657
Application 14/450,409

6
¶ 69), “a shortcut to content rather than the content itself” (Spec. ¶ 72), and
“a shortcut icon [displayed on screen] to specify a default file and start up an
application” (Spec. ¶ 118). Giiks’ text search box and toolbar icons—which
link to a search engine interface (e.g., Bing) or to a map application (see
Giiks (at 1:32–1:50, 2:48–3:33)) and provide access to that application’s
content (e.g., access to the web engine’s searchable data and to a map of Las
Vegas)—are commensurate with the term “shortcut icon” as claimed and
with the broad description of “shortcut icon” in Appellant’s Specification.
We also agree with the Examiner the combination of Giiks and Blythe
teaches displaying circuitry that can, upon accepting that the executing
circuitry has selected the at least one shortcut icon and in response to a user
selection of the shortcut icon, rotate the shortcut icon relative to the
orientation of the background screen region, as claimed. (Non-Final Act. 5–
6; Ans. 3.) As the Examiner finds, Giiks and Blythe teach the claimed
“executing circuitry” selecting icons (Blythe) or shortcut icons (Giiks).
(Non-Final Act. 4–5; see Blythe ¶¶ 55–56, Figs. 4A–4B; Giiks (at 1:30–
2:15, 2:48–3:33).) The Examiner further finds (i) “Giiks teaches a user can
change the orientation of objects such as a toolbar or an image using two
simultaneous touches, which is user selection of the shortcut icon,” and (ii)
Giiks teaches the claimed “displaying circuitry,” and illustrates “the search
box shortcut object can be rotated upon user selection” followed by “launch
[of] application display with the same orientation as the search box shortcut
object.” (Non-Final Act. 3, 5–6; Ans. 3; see Giiks (at 1:30–2:02, 2:48–
3:33).)
Appellant’s arguments—that “Giiks is silent” as to any ability or
displaying circuitry that can, upon accepting selection of “at least one
Appeal 2019-004657
Application 14/450,409

7
shortcut icon” and in response to a user’s icon selection, “rotate a shortcut
icon relative to the orientation of the background region of the screen”
(Appeal Br. 11)—do not substantively address the Examiner’s findings
regarding the operation of Giiks’ Microsoft Surface, which enables selection
and rotation of shortcut icons relative to a displayed background orientation.
In light of the arguments presented, Appellant has failed to
persuasively distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art relied on
by the Examiner. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 6 and 7 argued for substantially the
same reasons, and dependent claims 3–5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16 not
separately argued. (Appeal Br. 8, 10–12.)

DECISION SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–8, 11,
14
103 Blythe, Sakai,
Giiks, Lyle
1, 3–8, 11,
14

10, 13, 16 103 Blythe, Sakai,
Giiks, Lyle,
Dickman
10, 13, 16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–8, 10,
11, 13, 14,
16

Appeal 2019-004657
Application 14/450,409

8
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