Ex Parte Hernandez et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 2012

11353747 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MANUEL HERNANDEZ and
ANTHONY EDWARD MARTINEZ

Appeal 2010-001644
Application 11/353,747
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-001644
Application 11/353,747

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for
displaying data in a portable data processing system. Data is displayed
within a first display interface and, upon detection of a change in orientation
of the portable data processing system, the data is displayed within the first
display interface or a second display interface. See Specification, Abstract of
the Disclosure, page 42.

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A computer implemented method for displaying data in a
portable data processing system with a plurality of display
interfaces, the computer implemented method comprising:

responsive to receiving a first user input, opening an
application in the portable data processing system to form an
active application;

displaying first data associated with the active
application within a first display interface located within a front
panel of the portable data processing system;

detecting a second user input, wherein the second user
input is a change in an orientation of the portable data
processing system as a whole;

Appeal 2010-001644
Application 11/353,747

3
determining a change in a direction and a speed in the
orientation of the portable data processing system as a whole;
and

responsive to determining the change in the direction and the
speed in the orientation of the portable data processing system as a
whole, displaying second data associated with the active application
within a second display interface located within a back panel of the
portable data processing system based upon the change in the
direction and the speed in the orientation, wherein the front panel and
the back panel are on opposite sides of the portable data processing
system as a whole, and wherein the first data and the second data are
different data.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Yin US 2003/0201974 A1 Oct. 30, 2003
Wakefield US 2004/0080468 A1 Apr. 29, 2004
Potter US 2004/0125073 A1 Jul. 1, 2004
Osame US 2005/0040753 A1 Feb. 24, 2005
Nako US 6,972,752 B2 Dec. 6, 2005

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-20
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Yin, Potter and
Wakefield. Ans. 3-8.1
2. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Yin, Potter, Wakefield and Osame. Ans. 8.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Yin, Potter, Wakefield and Nako. Ans. 9-10.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 31, 2009;
the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 23, 2009; and, the Reply Brief
filed October 27, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001644
Application 11/353,747

4
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issues to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
1. Under §103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6,
9-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 by finding that Yin, Potter and Wakefield,
collectively, teach or suggest "responsive to receiving a first user
input, opening an application in the portable data processing
system to form an active application," "displaying first data
associated with the active application within a first display
interface," "displaying second data associated with the active
application within a second display interface located within a back
panel of the portable data processing system based upon the
change in the direction and the speed in the orientation," and,
“wherein the front panel and the back panel are on opposite sides
of the portable data processing system as a whole” as set generally
forth in Appellants’ independent claims?
2. Under §103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3 and 18
by finding that Yin, Potter, Wakefield, collectively, teach or
suggest "responsive to determining the change in the direction and
the speed in the orientation of the portable data processing system
as a whole, performing a task within the active application?"
3. Under §103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and 20
by finding that Yin, Potter, Wakefield, collectively, teach or
suggest " ... the task is automatically executing a default apply
function setting within the active application?"
Appeal 2010-001644
Application 11/353,747

5
4. Under §103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 by finding
that Yin, Potter, Wakefield and Osame, collectively, teach or
suggest “the first display interface located within a front panel of
the portable data processing system and the second display
interface located within a back panel of the portable data
processing system display the different data at a same time” as set
forth in claim 7?
5. Under §103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 by
finding that Yin, Potter, Wakefield and Nako, collectively, teach or
suggest “the counterclockwise flip direction using the quick speed
executes a forward pagination of a plurality of predetermined
pages within the multiple page document application and the
clockwise flip direction using the quick speed executes a backward
pagination of a plurality of predetermined pages within the
multiple page document application" as set forth within claim 12?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, with respect to claims 1, 14 and 17, that Yin fails to
teach or suggest "responsive to receiving a first user input, opening an
application in the portable data processing system to form an active
application," urging that the icons displayed by Yin are control icons and do
not suggest opening an application to form an active application in response
to a user input. App. Br. 12-13, Reply Br. 4-5.
The Examiner finds that Yin, at ¶[0023], discloses that Yin permits
users to interface with the device, utilizing an input device. Ans. 10-11.
Appeal 2010-001644
Application 11/353,747

6
We find the Examiner’s position persuasive. By way of explanation,
we find the display of control icons by Yin must necessarily follow the user
powering up the device. A power up/boot sequence must necessarily follow
the application of power by the user and we find that to be within the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “an application” which forms “an
active application” in response to that user input.
Appellants argue that Yin cannot be said to teach or suggest
"displaying first data associated with the active application within a first
display interface" in view of their stated belief that Yin fails to disclose an
“active application.” App. Br. 13, Reply Br. 5-6.
For the same reasons we set forth above, we find that Yin does
disclose "displaying first data associated with the active application within a
first display interface" and that the Examiner did not err by finding such a
teaching.
Appellants also argue that the cited references collectively fail to
teach or suggest "displaying second data associated with the active
application within a second display interface located within a back panel of
the portable data processing system based upon the change in the direction
and the speed in the orientation," and, “wherein the front panel and the back
panel are on opposite sides of the portable data processing system as a
whole.” App. Br. 14-16, Reply Br. 6-9. As a basis for Appellants’
argument, Appellants point out that the two displays provided by Yin are
located on a back panel and on the top panel, rather than on opposite sides of
the device as recited in Appellants’ independent claims. App. Br. 14.
Considering Wakefield, Appellants argue that the two-way display of
Appeal 2010-001644
Application 11/353,747

7
Wakefield is located on a “flip-member” and not on opposite sides of the
device, as set forth in Appellants’ independent claims. Id. at 15-16.
The Examiner points out that Yin is not relied upon for a teaching of
two displays on opposite sides of a device and finds that Wakefield discloses
such a configuration, citing Figure 1. Ans. 12.
We concur with the Examiner and find that, as depicted in Figure 1 of
Wakefield, when the flip-member is in the open position, it is beyond cavil
that the two display systems are located on opposite sides of the device.
With respect to claims 3 and 18, Appellants argue that the cited
references, collectively, do not teach or suggest "responsive to determining
the change in the direction and the speed in the orientation of the portable
data processing system as a whole, performing a task within the active
application" based upon Appellants’ previously enumerated position that
Yin fails to teach or suggest “performing a task within an active
application.” App. Br. 17, Reply Br. 9.
For the same reasons we set forth above with respect to claim 1, we
find that Yin discloses “performing a task within an active application” and
we find that the Examiner did not err in the rejection of claims 3 and 18.
Appellants, with regard to claims 11 and 20, argue that the cited
references fail to teach or suggest that "the task is automatically executing a
default apply function setting within the active application." App. Br. 17,
Reply Br. 9.
The Examiner finds that Yin discloses, at ¶[0035], that a default
function (varying which display is utilized) is automatically executed within
the active application. Ans. 13.
Appeal 2010-001644
Application 11/353,747

8
Appellants argue, with respect to claim 7, that Yin, Potter, Wakefield
and Osame, collectively, fail to teach or suggest “the first display interface
located within a front panel of the portable data processing system and the
second display interface located within a back panel of the portable data
processing system display the different data at a same time.” App. Br. 18-
19, Reply Br. 9.
The Examiner finds that the rejection relied upon Wakefield for a
teaching of two displays on opposite sides of a device and finds that Osame
displays different data in each of two display interfaces. Ans. 13.
We concur with the Examiner’s analysis and find the Examiner did
not err in finding that the combination of Yin, Potter, Wakefield and Osame
teach or suggest the claimed features of claim 7.
Finally, with respect to claim 12, Appellants argue that Yin, Potter,
Wakefield and Nako, collectively, fail to teach or suggest forward and
backward pagination of a single page or a predetermined number of pages in
response to various “flip” motions. App. Br. 20-21, Reply Br. 10-11.
The Examiner finds that Nako teaches the use of a “flip” motion to
paginate forward or backward, noting that Nako teaches that a single page
may be turned, or “turning of several pages as a unit at a time.” Nako, Col.
11, ll. 12-15.
We find the Examiner’s position persuasive. We find that the speed of
the “flip” required to execute the variations of pagination described are well
within the suggestion provided by Nako to one of ordinary skill in the art, or
are mere design choices available to such a practitioner.

Appeal 2010-001644
Application 11/353,747

9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, and
16-20 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, and 16-20
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Vsh