Ex Parte Kobayashi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13416317 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
13/416,317 03/09/2012 Hiroki Kobayashi 11P02986 US 2226
32968 7590 10/03/2017
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
8611 Balboa Ave
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
EXAMINER
BIBBINS, LATANYA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
KII-USPatents @ kyocera.com
Kathleen .Connell@kyocera.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROKI KOBAYASHI and HIROYUKI OKAMOTO
Appeal 2016-007626
Application 13/416,317
Technology Center 2600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007626
Application 13/416,317
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
4, 5 and 7—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to an electronic device having a
plurality of touch panels on a plurality of display screens respectively
including a first touch panel on a first display screen and a second touch
panel on the second display screen. When a predefined area on the first
touch panel is moved from a first location to a second location in a direction,
toward the second touch panel, a notification is displayed in an area between
the first location and the second location on the first display screen.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
An electronic device comprising:
a first touch display screen area and a second touch display
screen area;
a memory electronically coupled to a control module, and
storing notification information to be notified to the user; and
the control module electrically coupled to the first touch display
screen area and the second touch display screen area, and
operable to:
display a first application on the first touch display screen area
and a second application different from the first application on
the second touch display screen area;
detect a touch and drag motion by the user from a starting
position in a predefined area in an upper portion of the first
touch display screen area to an ending position between the
upper portion of the first touch display screen area and a lower
portion of the second touch display screen area; and
2
Appeal 2016-007626
Application 13/416,317
in response to the touch and drag motion, display the
notification information in a first area spanning from the
starting position to the ending position, and display a portion of
the second application in a second area spanning from the
ending position to the lower portion of the second touch display
screen area;
wherein the notification information is viewable in place of the
first application and another portion of the second application.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chiang US 2010/0081475 A1 Apr. 1, 2010
Comparing SmartPhone UIs: The Status Bar, users are humans; Feb.
4, 2010.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112, fourth paragraph,
as not further limiting the claims from which they depend.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Comparing Smartphone Ul’s.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Chiang in view of Comparing Smartphone Ul’s teaches or
suggests the limitation of:
in response to the touch and drag motion, display the
notification information in a first area spanning from the
starting position to the ending position, and display a portion of
the second application in a second area spanning from the
3
Appeal 2016-007626
Application 13/416,317
ending position to the lower portion of the second touch display
screen area;
as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551 F.3d 1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments
Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Claims 13—15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph
We pro forma sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13—15 under
35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, because Appellants have not raised any
arguments regarding these rejections.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7—16 rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
Appellants argue that neither Chiang nor Comparing Smartphone Uls,
alone or in combination, teaches a notification bar that is expandable over
first and second applications that are displayed in a first and a second touch
display screen area as required by claim 1. App. Br. 11—12.
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Chiang in Figure 2C teaches a
first and second touch display screen areas (204 and 206) which display a
4
Appeal 2016-007626
Application 13/416,317
first application on the first touch display screen area and a second
application, different from the first, on the second touch display screen area
(paras. 30-38, 47-49 and Fig. 5, element 512) (Ans. 4). The Examiner also
finds, and we agree, that Chiang teaches the ability to store and display
notification information to the user in one of the display screens while the
user works in the other display screen area (see para. 37; Ans. 4).
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that Comparing Smartphone
UTs teaches detecting a touch and drag motion by the user from a starting
position in a predefined area in an upper portion of the first touch display
screen area to an ending position between the upper portion of the first touch
display screen area and a lower portion of the second touch display screen
area and, in response to the touch and drag motion, displaying the
notification information in a first area spanning from the starting position to
the ending position, and displaying a portion of a second area spanning from
the ending position to the lower portion of the second touch display screen
area wherein the notification information is viewable in place of the first
touch display screen area (pgs. 4 and 5; Ans. 4—5). This teaching is
comparable to Figures 11—13 of Appellants’ Specification.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that
incorporating the notification features of Comparing Smartphone Ul’s into
the electronic device of Chiang having first and second touch display screen
areas which display a first application on the first touch display screen area
and a second application (as shown in Figure 2C of Chiang) would yield the
predictable result of displaying notifications viewable in place of the first
application and another portion of the second application, as recited in claim
1 (Ans. 5—6), allowing the user to continue working on the second area as
5
Appeal 2016-007626
Application 13/416,317
suggested by Chiang (para. 37) while viewing the expanded notification
from the first screen to a portion of the second screen area.
An artisan is presumed to possess both skill and common sense. See
KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Appellants have not presented any evidence demonstrating that the
modification would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, at 418).
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and, for the same
reasons, the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 7—16, not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Chiang in
view of Comparing Smartphone Ul’s teaches or suggests the limitation of:
in response to the touch and drag motion, display the
notification information in a first area spanning from the
starting position to the ending position, and display a portion of
the second application in a second area spanning from the
ending position to the lower portion of the second touch display
screen area,
as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13—15 under
35U.S.C§ 112, fourth paragraph.
We also affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 4, 5
and 7—16.
6
Appeal 2016-007626
Application 13/416,317
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7