Ex Parte Arrasvuori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13404098 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
13/404,098 02/24/2012 Juha Henrik Arrasvuori 042933/414992 7854
10949 7590 05/02/2017
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
ALMEIDA, CORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUHA HENRIK ARRASVUORI
and PETER ESKOLIN
Appeal 2016-008141
Application 13/404,098
Technology Center 2600
Before: HUNG H. BUI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 9—15, and 17—29. Claims 2, 8, and 16 have
been cancelled. Appeal Br. 15, 17, 20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-008141
Application 13/404,098
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
presenting multi-dimensional representations of an image dependent upon
the shape of a display. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below with the
disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
causing a first, multi-dimensional representation of an image to
be presented upon a display in an instance in which the display has a
first shape, wherein the display defines a z-axis extending
perpendicular to the display in a planar configuration;
causing a second, multi-dimensional representation of the
image to be presented upon the display in an instance in which the
display has a second shape, different than the first shape, wherein the
second, multi-dimensional representation has a different
dimensionality than the first, multi-dimensional representation', and
determining a shape of the display such that a corresponding
representation of the image is caused to be presented in response
thereto, wherein determining the shape of the display comprises
determining a degree to which the display is bent, and wherein
causing the second, multi-dimensional representation of the image to
be presented comprises causing the image to be represented along the
z-axis in a manner that corresponds to the degree to which the display
is bent such that the second, multi-dimensional representation of the
image that is caused to be presented in response to a lesser degree of
bending in a first direction extends along the z-axis to a different
extent than the second, multidimensional representation of the image
that is caused to be presented in response to a greater degree of
bending in the first direction.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—7, 9—15, and 17—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Choi et al. (US
2
Appeal 2016-008141
Application 13/404,098
2010/0056223 Al; published Mar. 4, 2010) (“Choi”) and Tziortzis et al. (US
2004/0212588 Al; published May 10, 2012) (“Tziortzis”).
ISSUE
Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Choi and Tziortzis
teach or suggest “causing a second, multi-dimensional representation of the
image to be presented upon the display in an instance in which the display
has a second shape, different than the first shape, wherein the second, multi­
dimensional representation having a different dimensionality than the first,
multi-dimensional representation,” and “causing the image to be represented
along the z-axis in a manner that corresponds to the degree to which the
display is bent,” as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately
recited in independent claims 7 and 15?
ANALYSIS
In support of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 7 and 15, the
Examiner relies on Choi to teach the disputed limitations, and finds the
enlarged portion of Choi is “extended in the z direction and thus it does not
remain a two dimensional representation but a representation extended in the
third, Z, dimension. It is clear from Fig. 11 and the corresponding Par. 0140
that the extension of the image is in a perpendicular, i.e. Z, direction from
the display screen.” Ans. 10; see also Final Act. 3—5.
Appellants contend Choi does not teach “any change in
dimensionality” because “Choi illustrates a portion of a two dimensional
representation being enlarged in response to bending of the display[,] but
“the enlarged portion remains a two-dimensional representation in the same
3
Appeal 2016-008141
Application 13/404,098
manner that the image was two-dimensional prior to the display being bent.”
Appeal Br. 9. Appellants argue Choi “merely depicts a portion of the image
being resized, e.g., enlarged and repositioned, e.g., in a curved or stretched
manner.” Id; see also Appeal Br. 10. Similarly, Appellants contend
Tziortzis “only discusses the flexing of the display causing a change in the
magnification of the image with the image remaining two-dimensional.”
Appeal Br. 11. Appellants argue neither reference teaches or suggests “that
the image is presented in a manner that causes the extension of portions of
the image along the z-axis to be different as a result of the bending of the
display.” Id.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Choi describes
extending or reducing the size of a part of a web data displayed on a display
region when part of the display region is bent. Choi 138—142, Fig. 11.
Similarly, Tziortzis describes using a flexible display to control the
magnification or size reduction of the image presented on the display.
Tziortzis Abstract; see also Tziortzis 48, 49, Fig. 5.
The claim recites “a z-axis extending perpendicular to the display in a
planar configuration” and “the second, multi-dimensional representation has
a different dimensionality than the first, multi-dimensional representation”
and “causing the image to be represented along the z-axis.” We agree with
Appellants that “the bending of the display in Choi may change the
dimensionality of the physical display,” (Reply Br. 2), but bending or
flexing the display does not change the dimensionality of the representation
of the image. Although bending or flexing the display may result in a
change in the appearance of the image through magnification or reduction in
size, the images in both Choi and Tziortzis remain two-dimensional images.
4
Appeal 2016-008141
Application 13/404,098
Further, when the display is bent or flexed, the images in Choi and Tziortzis
do not extend perpendicular to the display along the z-axis. Compare Choi
Fig. 11 and Tziortzis Fig. 5 with Spec. Figs. 4, 6.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred. Because we agree
with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not
address Appellants’ other arguments. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 15.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 3—6, 9—14, and 17—29.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 9—
15, and 17—29 is reversed.
REVERSED
5