Ex Parte JANG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13934603 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

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