Ex Parte LEE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14093231 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/093,231 11129/2013
68103 7590 07/03/2018
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
GeunhoLEE
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0203-1161 2214
EXAMINER
D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEUNHO LEE, RICHARD SUKYOON WOO, and
SANGHYUP LEE
Appeal2017-010860
Application 14/093,231
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVINE. BRANCH, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-37
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a method that "includes displaying an
operation of an application in a first display area of the touch screen,
receiving an incoming call, rendering an image of a user interface on the
touch screen in response to the incoming call, the image of the user interface
1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2.
Appeal2017-010860
Application 14/093,231
being superimposed over the displayed operation, and receiving a user input
on the user interface to respond to the incoming call." Specification
paragraph 7.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for information handling in a mobile terminal
comprising a touch screen, the method comprising:
displaying an operation of an application in a full display
area of the touch screen;
detecting at least one touch input associated with the
operation of the application in the full display area;
receiving an incoming call while displaying the operation
of the application;
determining at least one touch input region of the full
display area that is associated with the operation of the
application based on the at least one touch input, the at least one
touch input being detected on any location on the full display
area of the touch screen before receiving the incoming call;
rendering an image of a user interface on the touch screen
in response to the incoming call, the image of the user interface
being superimposed over at least one portion of the full display
area that is outside of the determined at least one touch input
region; and
receiving a user input on the user interface to respond to
the incoming call.
Re} ections on Appeal
Claims 1-23 and 25-37 stand rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bonansea (US Patent 7,289,772 Bl; issued
October 30, 2007), Chipchase (European Patent Application 1 650 937 Al;
published April 26, 2006) and Satoh (US Patent Application 2005/0180556
Al; published August 18, 2005). Final Action 6-16.
2
Appeal2017-010860
Application 14/093,231
Claim 24 stands rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bonansea, Chipchase, Satoh and Grillo (US Patent
6,717,589 Bl; issued April 6, 2004). Final Action 16-17.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 16, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
August 21, 2017), the Answer (mailed June 28, 2017) and the Final Action
(mailed October 19, 2016) for the respective details.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellants argue, "Bonansea, Chipchase and Satoh do not teach
determining an application touch input area during a call, based on a touch
in the area before the call is received." Appeal Brief 6 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds Bonansea discloses a method for information handling
in a mobile device having a touch screen wherein an operation of an
application is displayed in the touch screen. Final Action 6. The Examiner
further finds Bonansea employs a status bar to show incoming calls while
displaying the operation of the application. Final Action 6-7.
Bonansea' s Figure 7B is reproduced below:
3
Appeal2017-010860
Application 14/093,231
1
i
700--j
I
~o
("'!
1__,
Bonansea discloses in Figure 7B a mobile device having an application
displayed in the touch screen area (730) and a status bar (640) employed to
show an incoming call wherein the touch screen area is unaffected.
Bonansea, column 7, lines 59---67.
Bonansea discloses that both the status bar and the application are
displayed in the full area of the touch screen. See Bonansea Figure 7B,
column 7, lines 18-30. Appellants indicate support for the claimed
operation of the application in the full display area is found in the
Specification at paragraphs 98-100 and Figure 9; however, the Specification
is silent in regard to defining what encompasses the full display area. See
Appeal Brief 2. Although claim 1 requires "displaying an operation of an
application in a full display area," claim 1 does not specify how much of the
full display area is actually occupied by the application.
Bonansea discloses determining at least one touch input region of the
full display that is associated with the operation of the application based on
at least one touch input wherein the one touch input is detected on any
4
Appeal2017-010860
Application 14/093,231
location of the full display area before receiving the incoming call.
Bonansea, column 7, lines 9-30. Appellants indicate support for
determining the input touch region that is associated with the operation of
the application based on at least one touch input wherein the one touch input
is detected on any location of the full display area before receiving the
incoming call is found in the Specification paragraphs 92-106 and Figures 8,
9; however, the Specification is silent in regard to defining how this
determination is made. See Appeal Brief 2. "If a call is received at
operation 803, the control unit 160 proceeds to operation 805 at which the
control unit 160 identifies the position at which a touch event was generated
immediately before reception of the call." Specification, paragraph 94.
Appellants Figure 8 discloses a flow chart and a portion of the flow
chart has been reproduced below:
'""""!
801 !
rnsruw GAME FUNCTR!N SCREHJ • ._... !
803 I
-"~~-----"·-,~~;:-:C:l:I::~-_,.._~:::::~_,"" NO !
~--·-···········
I mEiriff PDsmmi"ji~HmH rciuc'H'ivEm a~5
I WAS GtNERAlW !MMHHATELY BEFOflt
L ... _,,, CAU HEGEPTION
~ ....................................... _ .................................................................................................... ......
rooTPtiTiiiNCTIO~ !NfOR~AATibN m BEGiOfJ'" 807
l NOT OVERUPP!NfI WffH mrnnnrn PDSITIDN .·"·· '
! wmLE susTArnnrm GAME rum::nm~ scm.rn
Figure 8 discloses that, "[i]f a call is received at operation 803, the control
unit 160 proceeds to operation 805 at which the control unit 160 identifies
5
Appeal2017-010860
Application 14/093,231
the position at which a touch event was generated immediately before
reception of the call. To this end, the control unit 160 may continuously
track touch points. At operation 807, the control unit 160 outputs function
information in at least one region not overlapping with the identified
position while sustaining the game function screen 41."
Specification paragraph 94.
Bonansea identifies the touch input region of the full display that is
associated with the operation of the application based upon the one touch
input before receiving the incoming call in the same manner as the claimed
invention. Final Action 7 (citing Bonansea's Figures 7A, B); See
Specification, paragraph 94. Bonansea discloses rendering an image of a
user interface on the touch screen in response to the incoming call and
wherein a user input on the user interface is received in response to an
incoming call. See Final Action 7 (citing Bonansea Figures 6B, 7B).
Claim 1 recites, "the image of the user interface being superimposed
over at least one portion of the full display area that is outside of the
determined at least one touch input region." The Examiner finds Bonansea
does not disclose superimposing the image over a portion of the full display
area (See Final Action 7-8). 2 The Examiner addresses the alleged
deficiency of Bonansea by finding "Chipchase teaches 'notifying a user' of
an event ( eg. incoming call) and the ability to use transparent effects (to alert
the user) anywhere on the screen (which reads on superimposed over the
2 We find that Bonansea, based upon a reasonable interpretation of the
claims, discloses in Figures 7 A-B, the status bar ( 640) positioned over at
least a portion of the full display area wherein the altered image relating to
an incoming call (Figure 7B, element 620) is superimposed over at least a
portion of the full display area that is outside of the determined one touch
region without affecting the operation of the application. Bonansea column
7, lines 50-67.
6
Appeal2017-010860
Application 14/093,231
displayed operation)." Final Action 8 (citing Chipchase paragraphs 32, 33).
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bonansea by the teachings of
Chipchase. Final Action 10-11.
We agree with the Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of
obviousness. The claimed image of the user interface superimposed over at
least a portion of the full display area reads upon Chipchase's disclosure of
employing transparency effects to display alerts on a screen so that other
elements of the display can be seen through the alerts. See Chipchase,
paragraph 32. Chipchase further discloses that the position of the alerts can
be adjusted to a preferred location on the screen. Chipchase, paragraph 33.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, 23, 26, 28 and 31 not argued separately. Appeal
Brief 14.
Appellants argue, "[b ]ecause the applied references fail to disclose or
render obvious the features presently recited in independent claims 1, 11, 23,
26, 28 and 31, dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, 22, [24], 25, 27, 29, 30 and 32-
37 are patentable for at least these reasons." Appeal Brief 14. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2-10,
12-20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30 and 32-37 for the same reasons as the
independent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 and 22-37 are
affirmed.
7
Appeal2017-010860
Application 14/093,231
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
8