Ex Parte Djabarov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

13692417 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
13/692,417 12/03/2012 Gueorgui Djabarov 079894.0848 1134
91230 7590 09/25/2017
Raker Rntts; T T P /Faeehnnk Tne
EXAMINER
2001 ROSS AVENUE EDWARDS, MARK
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75201 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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):
ptomaill @bakerbotts.com
ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUEORGUI DJABAROV, MICHAEL JOHN MCKENZIE
TOKSVIG, and BENOIT M. SCHILLINGS
Appeal 2017-001649
Application 13/692,4171
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—19 and 21—23. Claim 20 has been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Facebook, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001649
Application 13/692,417
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to “a computing device [that]
dynamically determines a current viewing direction with respect to a display
of the computing device; the computing device also dynamically directs at
least some light emitted by at least a portion of the display toward the
current viewing direction.” Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
by a computing device, dynamically determining a current
viewing direction with respect to a screen of the computing
device;
by the computing device, dynamically directing at least
some light emitted by at least a portion of the screen toward the
current viewing direction;
by the computing device, adjusting an angular range of a
viewing cone of the screen in response to receiving a notification;
and
by the computing device, displaying the notification on the
screen in accordance with the adjusted viewing cone.
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1—3, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sagardoyburu (US 2009/0213147 Al; Aug. 27, 2009) and
Imai (US 2007/0291024 Al; Dec. 20, 2007). Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sagardoyburu, Imai, and Fukuda (US 2009/0058845 Al;
Mar. 5, 2009). Final Act. 6.
2
Appeal 2017-001649
Application 13/692,417
3. Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sagardoyburu, Imai, Bezos (US 2010/0125816 Al;
May 20, 2010), and Inoue (US 2006/0164329 Al; July 27, 2006). Final Act.
7, 15.
4. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sagardoyburu, Imai, and Cohen (US 2012/0314899 Al;
Dec. 13,2012). Final Act. 10.
5. Claims 11—13, 16, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sagardoyburu, Imai, and Bezos.
Final Act. 11.
6. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sagardoyburu, Imai, Bezos, and Fukuda. Final Act. 17.
7. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sagardoyburu, Imai, and Belali (US 2007/0162582 Al;
July 12, 2007). Final Act. 18.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Imai teaches or suggests “adjusting an angular
range of a viewing cone of the screen in response to receiving a
notification,” and “displaying the notification on the screen in accordance
with the adjusted viewing cone,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4 (citing
Imai H39, 71, Fig. 2(a)); Ans. 5 (citing Imai H 39, 40, 67, 68, 70, 71).
More specifically, the Examiner finds Imai teaches a viewing angle
changing button, that when pressed, leads to a new viewing angle state
notification to be received and the viewing angle of the device to be
changed. Ans. 5 (citing Imai H 39, 71). The Examiner further finds the
3
Appeal 2017-001649
Application 13/692,417
viewing angle state notification is displayed on the device screen, indicating
the viewing angle state. Ans. 5 (citing Imai 39, 67, 68, 71, Fig. 2(a)).
According to Appellants, if it is assumed the claimed “notification” is
Imai’s notification that a viewing-angle button has been pressed, that
notification is not what is displayed on the screen, rather it is Imai’s viewing
angle information that is displayed on the screen. App. Br. 7; see also Reply
Br. 3 (“Even assuming . . . that the ‘viewing-angle instruction data’ could
properly be considered the notification, Imai still fails to disclose displaying
the viewing-angle instruction data on the screen ... as independent Claim 1
recites.”). Alternatively, according to Appellants, if it is assumed that the
viewing angle information displayed on the screen is the claimed
“notification” then Imai fails to disclose “adjusting an angular range of a
viewing cone of the screen in response'1'’ to the receiving viewing angle
information. App. Br. 7.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Imai teaches that a
viewing-angle retrieving section transmits to a viewing-angle control section
a “viewing-angle instruction data that is viewing-angle mode information.”
Imai 1 67. The viewing-angle instruction data causes the viewing-angle
control section to change the viewing-angle state of the device screen based
on the viewing-angle mode information contained in the instruction data.
Imai 1 68. This viewing angle instruction data containing the viewing-angle
mode information is also displayed on the screen as a message indicating the
viewing-angle mode, i.e. “wide viewing-angle, narrow viewing-angle, and
intermediate viewing-angle.” Imai 1 69; see also Fig. 2(a). In other words,
Imai’s “viewing-angle information,” which Appellants acknowledge is
displayed on Imai’s phone screen, simply reflects the mode information
4
Appeal 2017-001649
Application 13/692,417
contained in the viewing angle instruction data. Thus, we find no error in
the Examiner’s finding that Imai’s viewing angle state notification (or
instruction) teaches or suggests the claimed “notification” that both, causes
the angular range of a viewing cone to be changed, and is also displayed on
the screen.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims of independent claims 11 and 21
and the pending claims that depend from claims 1,11, and 21, for which
Appellants do not present additional arguments for patentability. See App.
Br. 8-9.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—19 and 21—23 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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5