Ex Parte Jin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2012

11132968 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2012)

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.
11/132,968 05/19/2005 Jeong-Gyu Jin 678-2050 7658
66547 7590 11/28/2012
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
PILLAI, NAMITHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2012 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 JEONG-GYU JIN, YONG-KOOK PARK,
and LEE-SEOK YOON
_____________

Appeal 2010-005251
Application 11/132,968
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BRYAN F. MOORE, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005251
Application 11/132,968

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1-22 which are all the claims pending on appeal.
App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a telecommunication terminal
having a rotatable display unit. See Spec., 1:13-14.
Claims 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. An apparatus for displaying a user interface (UI) for a
telecommunication terminal having a rotatable display unit, the
apparatus comprising:
a rotation sensing unit for sensing the rotation of the
display unit;
a memory unit for storing UI information on at least one
UI screen according to rotation states of the display unit; and
a control unit for determining a currently running
application in the telecommunication terminal, selecting UI
information according to at least one of the rotation states of the
display unit and the currently running application, constructing
a UI screen according to the selected UI information, rotating
the constructed UI screen in a direction according to the
rotation state of the display unit, and displaying the UI screen.

REFERENCES

Takahashi US 2004/0157647 A1 Aug. 12, 2004
Enger US 2005/0020325 A1 Jan. 27, 2005

Appeal 2010-005251
Application 11/132,968

3
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 and 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Takahashi. Ans. 3-9.
Claim 2 is also rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Takahashi and Enger. Ans. 9-10.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Takahashi discloses the
following limitation recited in claim 1: “a memory unit for
storing UI information on at least one UI screen according to
rotation states of the display unit”?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Takahashi discloses the
limitation of claim 3 reciting: “the rotation sensing unit has an
electromagnet positioned on one of the display unit and the
body of the telecommunication terminal, and a magnetic field
sensing unit capable of sensing the magnetic field of the
electromagnet positioned on the other of the display unit and
the body of the telecommunication terminal to sense the
rotation state of the display unit through the amount of change
of the magnetic field which varies according to the rotation
state of the display unit”?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Takahashi teaches the
following limitations recited in claim 4: “the rotation sensing
unit is adapted to sense the rotation state of the display unit
Appeal 2010-005251
Application 11/132,968

4
through the contact between the body of the telecommunication
terminal and a contact point of the display unit, which varies
according to the rotation state of the display unit”?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that Takahashi teaches the
limitation of claim 9 reciting: “selecting UI information
according to at least one of the rotation state of the display unit
and the currently-running application; [and] constructing the UI
according to the selected UI information” (independent claim
9)?

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) – Takahashi
Claims 1 and 3-22
Claim 1
Appellants present arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 17,
19, and 21. Claim 1 recites “a memory unit for storing UI information on at
least one UI screen according to rotation states of the display unit.”
Appellants argue that Takahashi does not disclose this limitation. App. Br.
6. Specifically, Appellants argue that “Takahashi discloses that image data
is sequentially stored in a row direction from an upper left pixel to a lower
right pixel [as shown in Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C]. Therefore, the storage of
the image data in memory is performed independently of a rotation state of
the display unit.” Id. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Appellants’ arguments focus on Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C (Reply Br. 2-
3), but Takahashi also discloses storing data regarding the orientation of the
Appeal 2010-005251
Application 11/132,968

5
screen. See Takahashi [0035]. Specifically Takahashi recites that “phone,
the coordinate rotation/transformation module 3 stored in, e.g., the lower
portion of the housing 20 determines the orientation of the current screen
(display) on the basis of acceleration data input from the gyro chip 11.” Id.
The Examiner’s interpretation that Takahashi discloses the storage of UI
information according to rotation states of the display unit is consistent with
the Appellants’ Specification which recites that “information on the UI
screen to be displayed on the display unit 204 according to each UI,
include[s] . . . the display position of icons and picture data . . . .” Spec.
6:21-25 (emphasis added). Therefore, we find that the coordinate
rotation/transformation module 3 stores information on the UI when it stores
the orientation or position of the picture data. See Ans. 11. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that Takahashi discloses “a memory unit for storing UI
information on at least one UI screen according to rotation states of the
display unit.” Id.
Appellants argue independent claims 17 and 21, which contain
limitations essentially the same as claim 1, are patentable for the same
reasons set forth above regarding claim 1. App. Br. 12-14, and 16-18.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 17 and 21, and claims 18 and 22 that depend therefrom.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites “the rotation sensing unit has an electromagnet
positioned on one of the display unit and the body of the telecommunication
terminal, and a magnetic field sensing unit capable of sensing the magnetic
field of the electromagnet positioned on the other of the display unit and the
Appeal 2010-005251
Application 11/132,968

6
body of the telecommunication terminal to sense the rotation state of the
display unit through the amount of change of the magnetic field which varies
according to the rotation state of the display unit.” Appellants argue that
Takahashi does not disclose this limitation. App. Br. 7-8. We agree.
The Examiner finds that “Takahashi discloses a gyro chip which reads
on the electromagnet that is disclosed in claim 3 [and t]he gyro chip is
positioned on the display unit and there is a sensing unit that senses the
magnetic field that is emitted from the gyro chip.” Ans. 11. However, the
Examiner provides no evidence to support this statement or to show, for
example, what sensor is reading the electromagnetic field of the gyroscope.
The Examiner cites to paragraph 33 of Takahashi which recites that “gyro
chip 11 detects an acceleration applied to the housing, and supplies the
detection result to the coordinate rotation/transformation module 3.”
However, if the gyro chip is read as the electromagnet, then there is no
sensor that detects its magnetic field, and if the gyro chip is the sensor then
there is no electromagnet whose magnetic field is being sensed. Thus we
cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4
Appellants argue that Takahashi does not disclose “the rotation
sensing unit is adapted to sense the rotation state of the display unit through
the contact between the body of the telecommunication terminal and a
contact point of the display unit, which varies according to the rotation state
of the display unit,” as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner
finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of those terms encompasses
sensing the pressing of a button on the body of the phone which causes the
Appeal 2010-005251
Application 11/132,968

7
display to rotate on the contact point between the display and the body of the
phone. See Spec. [6], [7], and Fig. 10. We find that there is ample support
for the Examiner’s finding. Appellants have not presented sufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation is in
error. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Takahashi
discloses “the rotation sensing unit is adapted to sense the rotation state of
the display unit through the contact between the body of the
telecommunication terminal and a contact point of the display unit, which
varies according to the rotation state of the display unit.” Id; see also, Ans.
11-12.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites “selecting UI information according to at least one of
the rotation state of the display unit and the currently-running application.”
Appellants argue that, as to the selecting limitation, Takahashi does not store
the display information in the orientation that it will be displayed on the
screen. App. Br. 10-11. We addressed this issue above with respect to
claim 1and, as noted above, are not persuaded by this argument.
Claim 9 also recites “constructing the UI according to the selected UI
information.” Appellants argue that Takahashi does not disclose this
limitation because “Takahashi merely displays image data without a
construction step, which results unused display areas around an image, as
shown in FIG. 4A of Takahashi.” App. Br. 11. This argument is not
commensurate with the claims because the claims do not require the lack of
unused areas around an image. We agree with the Examiner that Takahashi
rotates an image 90 degrees and that “changing the orientation [i.e., rotating]
Appeal 2010-005251
Application 11/132,968

8
of the same image involves reconstructing the image in a new format.” Ans.
13. Thus, we find that Takahashi discloses “constructing the UI according
to the selected UI information.”
Appellants argue independent claim 19, which contain limitations
essentially the same as claim 9, are patentable for the same reasons set forth
above regarding claim 9. App. Br. 14-15. Therefore, for the reasons stated
above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19, and claim 20 that
depends therefrom.
SUMMARY
Claims 5-8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are not argued separately and therefore
stand or fall with claims 1, 9, 17, 19, and 21. Thus, for the reasons stated
above, we find no error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and
4-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Takahashi. However, we
reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Takahashi.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) – Takahashi and Enger
Claim 2
Appellants do not present substantive arguments regarding claim 2,
and therefore this claim falls with claim 1. See App. Br. 7.

Appeal 2010-005251
Application 11/132,968

9

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-2 and 4-22 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc