Ex Parte JANGDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201713934603 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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. 13/934,603 07/03/2013 Jongwoon JANG 5004-1-490 1579 33942 7590 Cha & Reiter, LLC 17 Arcadian Avenue Suite 208 Paramus, NJ 07652 05/31/2017 EXAMINER DAVIS, TONY O ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2693 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONGWOON JANG Appeal 2016-005312 Application 13/934,603 Technology Center 2600 Before: DEBRA K. STEPHENS, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—8, and 10-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2 and 9 have been cancelled. We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a display method and apparatus in a terminal having a flexible display panel that adjusts for a Appeal 2016-005312 Application 13/934,603 distorted image resulting from bending the flexible display panel (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A display method in a terminal having a flexible display panel, the method comprising: calculating a degree of bending of the flexible display panel; determining whether the flexible display panel is bent based on the calculated degree of bending; transforming a screen displayed on the flexible display panel when the flexible display panel is bent; and displaying the transformed screen on the flexible display panel; wherein the transforming of the screen comprises: gradually decreasing a MAGNITUDE of the screen toward a center from an outer portion when the flexible display panel is convex, and transforming the screen by gradually increasing the MAGNITUDE of the screen toward the center from the outer portion when the flexible display panel is concave. REFERENCES prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on US 2010/0141605 A1 June 10, 2010 US 2012/0115422 A1 May 10, 2012 REJECTION Claims 1, 3—8, and 10—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tziortzis and Kang (Final Act. 3—19). The appeal is: Kang Tziortzis 2 Appeal 2016-005312 Application 13/934,603 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 3—8, and 10—18 Appellant contends their invention as recited in claims 1, 3—8, and 10- 18, is not obvious over Tziortzis and Kang (App. Br. 7—10). The issues presented by the arguments are: Issue 1: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Tziortzis and Kang teaches or suggests gradually decreasing a MAGNITUDE of the screen toward a center from an outer portion when the flexible display panel is convex, and transforming the screen by gradually increasing the MAGNITUDE of the screen toward the center from the outer portion when the flexible display panel is concave, as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 8 and 16? Issue 2: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Tziortzis and Kang teaches or suggests transforming the screen by moving upward a position of the screen being displayed away from the center when the flexible display panel is convex; and transforming the screen by moving downward the position of the screen being displayed away from the center when the flexible display panel is concave, as recited in claim 3 and commensurately recited in claim 10? ANALYSIS Issue 1 — Independent claims 1, 8, and 16 Appellant contends Kang fails to teach the disputed limitations because Figures 12A and 12B illustrate the side with the larger object is convex while the side with the smaller object is concave — the opposite of 3 Appeal 2016-005312 Application 13/934,603 the display recited (App. Br. 8—9). Appellant further asserts Figures 7A and 7B do not teach the disputed limitation because Figure 7A shows the display unflexed and Figure 7B, although showing the panel as flexed, shows the display with the portion from the left side slid off the screen without changing the magnitude of any content (id. at 9). The Federal Circuit has held that a prior art reference “must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, Figures 7B and 7C and Figures 12A and 12B are described as “exemplary embodiments of the invention” (Kang 16, 18). Thus, Appellant’s arguments that Kang fails to teach the disputed limitations narrowly focus on Kang’s specific embodiments rather than everything Kang teaches. For example, Kang describes [w]hen the controller 160 receives a plurality of bend signals having direction values differ from each other, the controller may [] enlarge or reduce a size of contents located in areas where bend events have occurred, respectively, and may then display the re-sized contents. (Id. 179). Similarly, Figures 7B and 7C, also described as exemplary embodiments (id. 116), depict adjusting the display width based on the bend angle (id. 1 58). Therefore, Kang teaches adjusting the magnitude of the screen and that the enlargement or reduction may be based on the bend. Kang does not limit increasing a magnitude of the screen to only when the bend is convex and vice-versa (see also Kang, claim 45 (“enlarging . . . content in an area of the device on which the bend event is detected in a first direction” and “reducing . . . content in an area of the device on which the bend event is 4 Appeal 2016-005312 Application 13/934,603 detected in a second direction’'' without limiting whether each direction is convex or concave)). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Further, a factfinder “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” and “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Accordingly, given Kang’s full teaching of enlarging or reducing content based on bend events, Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have found Kang to teach or at least suggest, “gradually decreasing a MAGNITUDE of the screen toward a center from an outer portion when the flexible display panel is convex,” and “gradually increasing the MAGNITUDE of the screen toward the center from the outer portion when the flexible display panel is concave,” as recited in claim 1. It follows we are not persuaded the combination of Tziortzis and Kang fails to teach or suggest the limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited independent claims 8 and 16. Issue 2 — Claims 3 and 10: Claim 3 recites “transforming the screen by moving upward a position of the screen being displayed away from the center when the flexible display panel is convex; and transforming the screen by moving downward the position of the screen being displayed away from the center when the flexible display panel is concave.” Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Tziortzis teaches the disputed limitation because the cited Figure 5 Appeal 2016-005312 Application 13/934,603 and paragraphs do not teach moving a position of the image information or moving it away from a center (App. Br. 12). According to Appellant, although Tziortzis teaches examples of bent displays, “moving a position of the image information” should not be interpreted as “resizing,” “magnifying,” or “reducing” the image information (id.). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. By resizing, magnifying, or reducing the image, a position of the image information is moved toward or away from a center. Thus, Tziortzis’ resizing teaches the disputed limitation. Appellant’s additional argument that Tziortzis fails to teach “displayed away from the center” is similarly unpersuasive. Indeed, Tziortzis teaches transforming the screen by moving a position of the screen being displayed (e.g., the top of the “A”) away from the center when the screen is magnified (Tziortzis 149, Fig. 5). Tziortzis further teaches the degree of magnification of the screen is related to the magnitude of bending (id. 149). Moreover, Tziortzis teaches the display may be bent into a convex or concave position and that modifications, resizing, or other display operations are able to be performed in response to defined flexing (id. ff 30, 36—37). Appellant’s additional argument that Tziortzis fails to teach the recited “moving” because none of the examples of Figure 3 is concave and Tziortzis has no discussion of the direction of the movement in relation to whether the flexible display panel is convex or concave (App. Br. 14) is not persuasive. Again, Figure 3 is described as “one example” (Tziortzis 17). For example, Tziortzis discloses “[fjlexing a flexible display into a concave shape by either concave bending or concave folding of the flexible display is 6 Appeal 2016-005312 Application 13/934,603 able to cause the size of the currently presented image to be reduce[d]” (id. 135). We are not persuaded Tziortzis does not teach the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination of Tziortzis and Kang fails to teach or suggest the limitations as recited in claim 3 and commensurately recited claim 10. Summary Appellant does not separately argue claims 3—7, 10-15, 17, and 18 (App. Br. 10). Therefore, these claims fall for the reasons set forth with respect to independent claims 1,8, and 16 from which they depend. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3—8, and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Tziortzis and Kang. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—8, and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tziortzis and Kang is 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation