Ex Parte Griffin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2015

13371421 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/371,421 02/11/2012
93377 7590 12/15/2015
Fish & Richardson P.C. (Blackberry)
P.O. Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason Griffin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
29717-0454002 2267
EXAMINER
FIGUEROA-GIBSON, GLORYVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2015 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON GRIFFIN
Appeal2014-001106
Application 13/371,421
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 18-34. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to making adjustments to
elements provided on a display according to a movement, i.e., change in
position or change in orientation of the device. See Spec. i-f 1.
Appeal2014-001106
Application 13/371,421
Claim 18 is illustrative:
18. A method for adjusting a screen image on a display of an
electronic device, the screen image having a plurality of layers
arranged above or below a base layer, the method comprising:
monitoring for at least one of a yaw movement or pitch
movement of the device while displaying the screen image having a
first user viewing location, the screen image being provided with a
first element in one layer of the plurality of layers and a second
element in a second layer of the plurality of layers; and
responsive to at least one of a detected yaw movement or
pitch movement of the device:
determining a second user viewing location for
said screen image based on said at least one of detected yaw
movement or pitch movement of the device;
adjusting the screen image by shifting the first
element relative to the second element in response to said at least one
of detected yaw movement or pitch movement of the device, to
compensate for the change in user viewing location from the first user
viewing location to the second user viewing location; and
displaying the screen image having the second user
viewing location.
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 18-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Hinckley (US 2011/0265046 Al, Oct. 27, 2011).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to the Appellant's
arguments. We concur with Appellant's conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that Hinckley discloses adjusting the screen image by shifting the
2
Appeal2014-001106
Application 13/371,421
first element relative to the second element in response to said at least one of
a detected yaw movement or pitch movement of the device, as set forth in
claim 18 (see claim 18).
As identified by Appellant, "icon 1600 is not displayed prior to a
detected rotation and, instead, appears in response to a rotation of the
mobile device in the x-y plane. . .. Hinckley does not shift the first element
relative to the second element in response to a detected yaw or pitch
movement of the device" (App. Br. 11 )(emphasis added). Claim 18 requires
that the first and second element be displayed during the monitoring step and
prior to the detecting yaw or pitch movement of the device (see claim 18).
In contrast, Hinckley discloses feedback presented in the form of "an
icon that indicates the orientation of the displayed images that will be
triggered if the device is kept in its current orientation" (i-f 112; see also Fig.
16). In other words, Hinckley's icon 1600 only appears on the display after
the display' s orientation is changed and this icon 1600 is shown to match the
orientation to which the displayed images will be switched (see Figs. 15 and
16). Because icon 1600 appears for the first time in response to a change in
display orientation, we find that icon 1600 cannot shift relative to a second
element, as required by the claims. As noted supra, Hinckley' s icon 1600 is
not present prior to detecting yaw or pitch movement of the device, it only
appears after detection of movement.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner fails to show how Hinckley' s
icon 1600 shifts relative to a second element, as set forth in the claims. At
best, Hinckley's Fig. 16 illustrates icon 1600 being shown in a different
orientation from the second element. However, this is the only position that
icon 1600 is ever shown in, as opposed to a shift in position.
3
Appeal2014-001106
Application 13/371,421
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Hinckley discloses
adjusting the screen image by shifting the first element relative to the second
element, as recited in each of the independent claims. Because we agree
with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach
the merits of Appellant's other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 18-34.
DECISION1
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 18-34 is reversed.
REVERSED
dw
1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider
if the computer readable medium claim, claim 34, should also be rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We are compelled to note that the ordinary and
customary meaning of "computer readable medium" to a person of ordinary
skill in the art is broad enough to encompass both non-transitory and
transitory media. Signals are not patentable eligible subject matter under
§ 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also MPEP
§ 2106(!) (8th ed. Rev. 9 Aug. 2012) and Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d
1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential).
4