SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 25, 20202021000438 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2020) 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. 14/993,589 01/12/2016 Jong-hyuk Kim Q219486 2225 23373 7590 11/25/2020 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 EXAMINER ORR, HENRY W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2145 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/25/2020 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM USPTO@sughrue.com sughrue@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JONG-HYUK KIM, SEUNG-HYUN MOON, and DAE-HYUN JANG ____________________ Appeal 2021-000438 Application 14/993,589 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 11, and 13 through 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000438 Application 14/993,589 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a display apparatus to display a user interface screen; an input unit configured to receive a user operation to select and execute at least one menu included in the user interface screen; and a processor configured to separately recognize a short click and a long press based on an input time of the user operation. Specification ¶ 10. The processor constantly maintains an execution speed of a function corresponding to a selected menu within a preset critical time in the time for which the input of the long press is continued and accelerates the execution speed of the corresponding function after the preset critical time passes. Id. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A display apparatus, comprising: a display; and a processor configured to: control the display to display: a plurality of menu items comprising a power menu item, a source menu item, and a volume menu item, and an indicator for selecting a menu item of the plurality of menu items, wherein the plurality of menu items respectively correspond to a plurality of functions for controlling the display apparatus; receive a user operation of pressing a single key while the plurality of menu items are displayed on the display; identify the received user operation as either a short click or a long press based on an input time of the user operation of pressing the single key; Appeal 2021-000438 Application 14/993,589 3 in response to the user operation of pressing the single key being identified as the short click while the indicator is positioned on a menu item of the plurality of menu items, move the indicator from the menu item to another menu item of the plurality of menu items; in response to the user operation of pressing the single key being identified as the long press while the indicator is positioned on a menu item of the plurality of menu items, perform a function corresponding to the menu item on which the indicator is positioned; and maintain a speed of performing the function within a preset time for which an input of the long press is continued and accelerate the speed of performing the function after the preset time passes. REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7 , 9 through 11, and 13 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Takagi (US 2002/0113895 A1, Aug. 22, 2002), Ostergaard (US 2008/0235583 A1, Sept. 25, 2008) and Kim (US 2013/0035941 A1, Feb. 7, 2013). Final Act. 3–13. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Takagi, Ostergaard, Kim and An (US 2012/0146925 A1, June 14, 2012). Final Act. 13–14. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 7, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed October 20, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed December 20, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 25, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2021-000438 Application 14/993,589 4 ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 is in error as the combination of the references does not teach enabling selection of a menu item from a plurality of menu items based upon a short click, the execution of a selected menu item based upon a long click, and acceleration of the speed of the function being performed based upon input time of the long click. Appeal Br. 9–12, Reply Br. 4–11. Appellant argues that Takagi does not relate to the operation of single key for a plurality of displayed menu items as claimed; Appellant asserts that “even if Takagi discloses the feature of executing a function and adjusting the execution speed of the corresponding function using distinct keys, it has nothing to do with the user operation of a single key for a plurality of displayed menu items.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that Ostergaard merely discloses adjusting rewinding speed according to the press time of a button and does not teach the use of single key for a plural menu items. Additionally, Appellant argues “Kim has nothing to do with the present invention that moves an indicator between menu items according to at least a short click of a single key.” Appeal Br. 12 The Examiner finds that Takagi teaches the claimed feature of a short press performing selection of a menu item, from a plurality of menu items and the execution of a selected menu item, based upon a long click. Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner states: For example, a short press on “up” arrow key results in selecting and executing a next channel and a long press on the same “up” arrow key results in selecting and executing a next channel. The difference between the short press and the long press of Takagi is the distance traveled to select the next channel that is executed. A Appeal 2021-000438 Application 14/993,589 5 short press is designed to move one channel at a time (e.g., immediately by one see par. 26), while a long press is designed to move multiple channels at a time (e.g., incremented by 10 see par. 26). Examiner notes that the scope of the claim language fails to preclude a short press on the single “up” arrow key, selecting and executing a next channel menu item and a long press on the same single “up” arrow key, selecting and executing a next channel menu item. In other words, the recited short press to select a menu item fails to preclude a short press to select and execute a next channel item and the recited long press to execute a function corresponding to a menu item fails to preclude a long press to select and execute the corresponding channel function of a next channel item. Takagi teaches short and long press on the same single “up” arrow key (see par. 26). Therefore, applying a short press and long press on the same single channel “up” key teaches or suggests the feature of allowing a user to select one of a plurality of menus using only a single key for the selection of a plurality of displayed menu items for performing a function (based on a short click), (i.e., switching menu item channels via short press see par. 26) the execution of function of a selected menu item (based on a long click), (i.e., switching menu item channels via long press and executing the channel function of the selected next channel see par. 26). Ans. 5–6. Further, the Examiner identifies that Ostergaard is relied upon to teach the claim limitation of acceleration of the speed of the performing function and Kim is relied upon to teach a plurality of menu items as claimed. Ans. 6, Final Act 6–8 (citing Ostergaard ¶ 86 and Kim, Figs. 8, 25 and 33). Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent apparatus claim 1 but not of independent method claim 9. Both independent claims recite a steps of: receiving a user Appeal 2021-000438 Application 14/993,589 6 operation of pressing a single key while plural menu items are displayed, identifying the operation as either short click or a long press based upon user operation of pressing the single key; and in response to the operation being a short click, moving the indicator; and in response to the operation being a long press, performing a function corresponding to the menu item on which the indicator is positioned. Thus, the claims recite alternative operations which are performed based upon the input being determined as being either short click or a long press. We construe the scope of apparatus claim 1, as being such that the apparatus has the capability of performing operations of both the alternatives. However, we do not consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 9 as requiring both alternative operations (conditional operations) to be performed, as they are mutually exclusive (i.e. a user operation cannot be both a short click and a long press). As such, in considering the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 9, the steps dependent upon the condition would not necessarily be invoked and as such it is not incumbent upon the Examiner to show that the art performs those steps. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3–4 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if the condition precedent is not met). See also MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2111.04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing Schulhauser) and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[O]ptional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”).Gary M. Katz, Appeal No. 2010- 006083, 2011 WL 1211248, at *2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011) (citing In re Am. Appeal 2021-000438 Application 14/993,589 7 Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). As discussed above, the Examiner finds that Takagi teaches a short press on the up button meets the claimed “short click” as it moves a cursor on a display of menu items. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Takagi Fig 4A, and ¶¶ 21, 23, 25. We have reviewed the cited teachings of Takagi and concur with the Examiner that Tagai teaches the short press of the up button changes the channel, and that this results in the cursor in the channel guide also moving (i.e. the channel guide is a menu and by changing the channel the cursor moves to the next item in the menu, the next channel). See Takagi ¶15, 21, 23, and 24. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s finding that the claim language fails to preclude the features of Takagi is improper and that: Takagi does not teach or suggest the features of the claimed invention. As claim 1 recites, the single key is to operate on a menu item or another menu item among a plurality of menu items respectively corresponding to a plurality of functions: • pressing single key being identified as the short click while the indicator is displayed➔moving the indicator from the menu item to another menu item of the plurality of menu items • pressing single key being identified as the long press while the indicator is displayed➔ performing a function corresponding to the menu item on which the indicator is positioned; As such, claim 1 clearly defines the plurality of menu items as comprising a power menu item, a source menu item, and a volume menu item. In addition, claim 1 indicates that the user operation of the short click results in moving “indicator” from one menu item to another menu item. Reply Br. 8–9. Appeal 2021-000438 Application 14/993,589 8 We find that Takagi does teach using a single key to move an indicator from a menu item or another menu item. The claims recite “receive a user operation of pressing a single key while the plurality of menu items are displayed on the display” and do not recite a limitation precluding there being other keys; thus they are broad enough to encompass systems such as Takagi, which teaches that one or more keys that can operate on the menu. Similarly, the claims recite the short click teaches “moving the indicator” and do not recite a limitation precluding the short click from also executing the menu item; thus they are broad enough to encompass systems such as Takagi, which teaches that short click also executes the menu item. Further, as discussed above the Examiner cites Kim to teach the specific functions associated with the menu items and in combination that the Examiner finds that the feature of moving one menu item, where the menu comprises a power item, source item and volume item is obvious. Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s findings concerning Kim or the combination with Kim. As such we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of the references teach the claimed step of receiving a user operation of pressing a single key while plural menu items are displayed, identifying the operation as either short click or a long press based upon user operation of pressing the single key; and in response to a the operation being a single click, moving the indicator. As discussed above the broadest reasonable construction of method claim 9 is that only one of steps dependent upon the condition would not necessarily be invoked. As we concur with the Examiner that the combination of the references teaches the step based upon the condition of determining the operation is a short click, we sustain the Examiner’s Appeal 2021-000438 Application 14/993,589 9 obviousness rejection of method claim 9 and claims 10, 11, 13 through 15 which are grouped with and depend upon claim 9. We, however reach the opposite conclusion with respect to independent apparatus claim 1, which as discussed above has a different scope from claim 9 and requires the apparatus to be capable of performing both of the steps dependent upon the condition. In claim 1, the additional steps to be performed based upon the other condition (the input being identified as a long press) include “in response to the user operation of pressing the single key being identified as the long press while the indicator is positioned on a menu item of the plurality of menu items, perform a function corresponding to the menu item on which the indicator is positioned.” We consider the scope of the limitation to be that function executed corresponds to the menu item on which the indicator is positioned when the long press is received. The Examiner also relies upon Takagi to teach this limitation in combination with Kim. Final Act. 5–6, 8; Ans. 5–6. We disagree with the Examiner. As discussed above, we concur with the Examiner combining Takagi’s system of moving an indicator from a menu item or another menu item with Kim’s menu. However, Kim’s teaching of action when the press is considered to be a long press, involves incrementing the channel selection by 10, moving the indicator 10 channels in the channel guide. See Takagi ¶ 26. Thus, the teaching in Takagi is to move the indicator when the press is a long press and not execute the function associated with the menu item on which the indicator is positioned as is claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain he Examiner’s rejection of independent claim apparatus 1, and claims 2, 3, 5 through 7 which depend upon claim 1. Appeal 2021-000438 Application 14/993,589 10 With respect to the rejection of claims 8 and 16 Appellant’s argue: An is cited related to teachings of dependent claims 8 and 16. An has not been cited as teaching any limitations of independent claims 1 and 9 and provides no additional information that would suggest a modification of Takagi in view of Ostergaard and further in view of Kim to arrive at the claimed feature. Thus, the rejection of claims 8 and 16 should be reversed. Appeal Br. 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 16. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1– 3, 5–7, 9– 11, 13–15 103 Takagi, Ostergaard, Kim 9–11, 13–15 1– 3, 5–7 8, 16 103 Takagi, Ostergaard, Kim, An 16 8 Overall Outcome 9–11, 13–16 1– 3, 5–8 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)(1)(iv) (2018). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation