Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2012

10822847 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 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.
10/822,847 04/13/2004 Young-kook Kim 101-1033 3206
38209 7590 06/25/2012
Stanzione & Kim, LLP
919 18th Street, NW
Suite 440
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
SALOMON, PHENUEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte YOUNG-KOOK KIM
__________

Appeal 2010-004309
Application 10/822,847
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEPHEN C. SIU, and THOMAS L.
GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 9, 19-24, 27-29, and 31-82. Claims 5,
6, 8, 10-18, 25, 26, and 30 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to displaying function
buttons on an image display (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method of indicating functions of buttons in an image
display apparatus, the method comprising:
Appeal 2010-004309
Application 10/822,847

2
generating an image indicating functions assigned to the
buttons; and
displaying the image on the image display apparatus,
wherein the image is displayed at a position on the image
display apparatus close to the buttons, and wherein the displaying of
the image on the image display apparatus further comprises:
detecting a pivot angle of the image display apparatus, and
displaying the image rotated according to the pivot angle at a
position close to the buttons.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Badger US 5,973,664 Oct. 26, 1999
Kim US 6,346,972 B1 Feb. 12, 2002
Ruberry US 6,356,287 B1 Mar. 12, 2002
Bald US 6,744,259 B2 Jun. 1, 2004
Yu US 6,757,034 B2 Jun. 29, 2004

NEC Technologies, MultiSync LCD 1510+ User’s Manual, NEC
LCD Series, (1999) (“NEC”).

Portrait Displays Inc., Pivot Pro Products, (1998-2001), (“Pivot”).

The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims 1, 65, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yu, Badger, and NEC;
Claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yu,
Badger, NEC, and Bald;

Appeal 2010-004309
Application 10/822,847

3
Claims 7, 9, 19-23, and 67-70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Bald, and NEC;
Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim,
Bald, and NEC, and Ruberry;
Claims 27-29, 31-34, 71, and 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bald and Yu;
Claims 35, 36, 73, and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bald, Yu, Kim, and NEC;
Claims 37-63 and 75-80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yu, Pivot, Kim, and NEC;
Claims 64, 81, and 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bald, Yu, Pivot, and NEC.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-4, 7, 9, 19-24, 27-29, and
31-82?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
Appeal 2010-004309
Application 10/822,847

4
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2-4, 65, and 66 (and 64, 81, and 82)
Appellant argues that the combination of Yu, Badger and NEC fails to
disclose or suggest “‘detecting a pivot angle of the image display apparatus,
and displaying the image rotated according to the pivot angle at a position
close to the buttons’” (App. Br. 13) as recited in claim 1. We agree with
Appellant.
While the Examiner states that Badger and NEC disclose rotating a
display monitor (see, in general, Ans. 26), the Examiner does not also
demonstrate that Badger or NEC discloses or suggests that a displayed
image indicating functions of the buttons is rotated accordingly and at a
position close to the buttons. In fact, it does not appear (and the Examiner
does not demonstrate) that either Badger or NEC discloses a displayed
image indicating functions of buttons at all much less disclosing the
displayed image located at a position close to the buttons.
The Examiner states that Yu discloses “a monitor with function
buttons on the side . . . but if the user rotates the monitor from landscape to
portrait the on-screen menu will have a different orientation as compared to
the original landscape display” (Ans. 27). However, the Examiner does not
Appeal 2010-004309
Application 10/822,847

5
indicate where in the Yu reference the disclosure of rotating the monitor
from landscape to portrait or that the on-screen menu will have a different
orientation. In fact, it appears that Yu does not provide these disclosures.
Claim 64 recites similar features. The Examiner rejects claim 64, and
dependent claims 81 and 82, as obvious over Yu, Pivot, Bald, and NEC. As
set forth above, we agree with Appellant that Yu and NEC fails to disclose
or suggest the disputed features. The Examiner states that Pivot discloses
rotating a “computer display from landscape to portrait position” (p. 1) and
Bald discloses “input buttons that are substantially flush with the unit
surface” (Ans. 25). However, the Examiner does not demonstrate that either
of Pivot or Bald also discloses or suggests displaying an image indicating
functions of buttons at a position close to the buttons.
Therefore, we cannot agree with the Examiner.

Claims 7, 9, 19-24, and 68-70
Appellant argues that the combination of Kim, Bald, and NEC fails to
disclose or suggest that “the menu is displayed in a position that is ‘rotated’
according to the detected ‘pivot angle’ at a ‘position close to the buttons’”
(App. Br. 16, 18).
The Examiner states that NEC discloses an on-screen menu
“displayed according to the button position” (Ans. 7) but does not indicate
where NEC also discloses that the on-screen menu has zones to display
functions assigned to the buttons, the displayed functions being “close to the
Appeal 2010-004309
Application 10/822,847

6
buttons” as recited in claim 7. While the Examiner also cites the Kim
reference, we note that Kim discloses an on-screen menu indicating
functions of buttons but the on-screen menu is not located “close to the
buttons” either.
Therefore, we cannot agree with the Examiner.

Claims 27-29, 31-34, 71, and 72
Appellant argues that the combination of Yu and Bald fails to disclose
or suggest “‘generating sub-functions of at least one of the first and second
buttons according to the generated first and second function’” (App. Br. 20)
as recited in claim 27 because, according to Appellant, Yu discloses
“volume adjustment” (id.) but “[t]here is no generated ‘sub-function’
associated with the ‘volume adjustment’ described by Yu” (App. Br. 20).
We disagree with Appellant.
As the Examiner indicates, Yu discloses “control buttons 102” (col. 3,
l. 5) and “indicating symbols 302” (col. 3, l. 6) that “indicate functions and
positions of the function buttons 102” (col. 2, ll. 8-9). The “indicating
symbols” of Yu, like the “first function” and “second function” recited in
claim 27, are generated to be displayed on the screen and correspond to
“control buttons 102” (or “first” or “second buttons” as recited in claim 7).
Yu also discloses that upon depression of a button – e.g., “function buttons
106” (col. 3, l. 19) or “adjusting buttons 104, 105” (col. 2, ll. 53-54) – a
“volume adjustment bar 303 appears near the indicating symbols 302” (col.
Appeal 2010-004309
Application 10/822,847

7
3, ll. 20-21) or an “adjustment bar 304 extends rightward” (col. 3, l. 55),
respectively. In other words, Yu discloses generating a “sub-function” (e.g.,
adjusting volume or contrast) of a corresponding button (e.g., a “control
button”) according to a function (e.g., an “indicating symbol”).
Appellant has not adequately demonstrated any difference between
either the “volume adjustment bar” or “adjustment bar” of Yu and a “sub-
function” as recited in claim 27. Nor do we identify any significant
differences since both the adjustment bars of Yu and the “sub-function” as
recited in claim 27 correspond to buttons and correspond to “indicating
symbols” (or a “first and second function” as claimed).
Appellant does not provide additional arguments in support of
dependent claims 28-34, 71, or 72.

Claims 35, 36, 73, and 74(and 48-63 and 77-80)
Appellant argues that the combination of Yu, Bald, Kim, and NEC
fails to disclose or suggest “that ‘the image display unit displays the image
rotated according to the pivot angle at a position close to the at least one
button’ as recited in claim 35” (App. Br. 23).
However, as stated above, Yu discloses that “symbols indicating the
positions and function of the control buttons are displayed on the display
screen” (col. 2, ll. 16-17), the displayed functions being displayed “close to
the buttons” (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4) while Kim discloses displaying and
rotating functions of buttons according to a pivot angle (see, e.g., Kim, Figs.
Appeal 2010-004309
Application 10/822,847

8
1, 2, and 10). While Appellant argues that NEC supposedly fails to disclose
the disputed feature, Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence that the
combination of Yu, Bald, Kim, and NEC also fails to disclose or suggest the
disputed feature.
Claims 48 and 63, and dependent claims 49-62 and 77-80, while not
specifically addressed by Appellant, recite similar features.

Claims 37-47, 75, and 76 (and 48-63 and 77-80)
Appellant argues that the combination of Yu, Pivot, Kim, and NEC
fails to disclose or suggest detecting whether the device is in a portrait mode
or in a landscape mode as recited in claim 37 because, according to
Appellant, Pivot “fails to teach or suggest ‘a detector unit’ [and] ‘detect’ a
‘portrait mode or in a landscape mode’ anywhere” (App. Br. 24). Appellant
reiterates this argument for claims 48-62, 77, and 78 (App. Br. 26-27). We
disagree with Appellant.
As the Examiner indicates, Pivot discloses taking “advantage of a
computer display that has the capability of rotating from standard
‘landscape’ setting to the popular ‘portrait’ setting” (p. 2). In order to
accommodate changes between landscape and portrait mode of a monitor, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify or
detect the state of the display (landscape or portrait) because otherwise Pivot
would be unable to accommodate such changes. Appellant has not
Appeal 2010-004309
Application 10/822,847

9
sufficiently demonstrated a difference between Pivot (rotating a display
between modes) and detecting the modes as recited in claim 37.
In addition, as described above, Kim discloses a monitor of a
computer system being “arbitrarily turned” and “the on-screen display can
be displayed in a normal manner” (col. 1, ll. 37-39), which Appellant has not
sufficiently shown to differ from the disputed claim feature of detecting a
portrait or landscape mode of a display device.
Appellant also argues that both Kim and NEC fail to disclose or
suggest at least one symbol that is displayed at a position close to an input
unit as recited in claim 37 (App. Br. 24-25). However, as described above,
Yu discloses a symbol displayed at a position close to an input unit (see,
e.g., Figs. 3-4). Appellant does not sufficiently point out any difference
between this disclosure of Yu and the disputed claimed feature.
Claims 48 and 63, and dependent claims 49-62 and 77-80, recite
similar features. Appellant does not provide additional arguments in support
of these claims.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 27-29,
31-34, 71, and 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bald
and Yu; claims 35, 36, 73, and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bald, Yu, Kim, and NEC; and claims 37-63 and 75-80
Appeal 2010-004309
Application 10/822,847

10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yu, Pivot, Kim, and
NEC.
We also conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 65,
and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yu, Badger, and
NEC; claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yu,
Badger, NEC, and Bald; claims 7, 9, 19-23, and 67-70 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Bald, and NEC; claim 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Bald, and NEC, and
Ruberry; and claims 64, 81, and 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bald, Yu, Pivot, and NEC

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 27-29, 31-63, 71-
80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1-4, 7, 9, 19-24, 64-70, 81, and 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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

rvb