14276576 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

Ex Parte Luttrell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2018

14276576 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/276,576 05/13/2014 58127 7590 03/28/2018 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Wesley Abram Luttrell 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. RPS920140007USNP(7 l 0.330) 1042 EXAMINER DINH,DUCQ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2692 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2018 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WESLEY ABRAM LUTTRELL, DANIEL JORDAN SCHANTZ, CHRISTOPHER MILES OSBORNE, and VINCENTCHARLESCONZOLA Appeal2017-010000 Application 14/276,576 1 Technology Center 2600 Before HUNG H. BUI, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD. App. Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed March 13, 2017; the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 18, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 18, 2017; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed October 13, 2016; and original Specification ("Spec."), filed May 13, 2014. Appeal2017-010000 Application 14/276,576 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention relates to a method, system, and computer program product for "displaying images across multiple displays" including "at least two hingedly coupled display devices," by "determining, using a processor, [a] display mode of the data, the display mode being selected from the group consisting of an occluded mode and a non-occluded mode" and "displaying, using the at least two hingedly coupled display devices, the data according to the display mode determined." Spec. i-fi-13-5; Title (capitalization altered); Abstract. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method, comprising: receiving, using a processor, data to be displayed across at least two hingedly coupled display devices; determining, using a processor, without user input, the display mode of the data, the display mode being selected from the group consisting of an occluded mode and a non-occluded mode; in the occluded mode, processing, using a processor, the data to occlude pixels of the data based upon the determined display mode, the pixels being occluded at a location where a physical separation exists between the at least two hingedly coupled display devices; and displaying, using the at least two hingedly coupled display devices, the data according to the display mode determined. App. Br. 20 (Claims App'x). 2 Appeal2017-010000 Application 14/276,576 Kilpatrick Karve Takishita Kim Mate Evidence Considered US 8,836,611 B2 Sept. 16, 2014 US 9,298,413 Bl Mar. 29, 2016 US 8,988,313 B2 Mar. 24, 2015 US 2009/0015513 Al Jan. 15,2009 US 2011/0164065 Al July 7, 2011 Examiner's Re} ections3 (1) The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b ). Final Act. 3. (2) Claims 1, 2, 5, 9--12, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kilpatrick, Karve, and Takishita. Final Act. 4--8. (3) Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kilpatrick, Karve, Takishita, and Kim. Final Act. 8. 3 Claims 9 and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2-3. However, thisÂ§ 112(a) rejection was withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer, and is no longer pending on appeal. Ans. 2. In addition, (1) claims 1, 2, 5, 9--12, 15, 19, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kilpatrick, Karve, and Appellants' Admitted Prior Art; (2) claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kilpatrick, Karve, Appellants' Admitted Prior Art, and Kim; and (3) claims 6-8 and 16-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kilpatrick, Karve, Appellants' Admitted Prior Art, and Mate. Final Act. 10-16. However, theseÂ§ 103 rejections were withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer, and are no longer pending on appeal. Ans. 2. 3 Appeal2017-010000 Application 14/276,576 (4) Claims 6-8 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kilpatrick, Karve, Takishita, and Mate. Final Act. 9-10. Issue on Appeal Based on Appellant's arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the combination of Kilpatrick, Karve, and Takishita teaches or suggests "determining, using a processor, without user input, the display mode of the data, the display mode being selected from the group consisting of an occluded mode and a non-occluded mode," as recited in Appellants' independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 20. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 15-17. ANALYSIS Â§ l 12(b) Rejection of Claim 7 Appellants provide no arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) rejection of claim 7 as lacking antecedent basis for "the image alignment" limitation. Final Act. 3. Thus, we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b). Â§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1-20 With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend the combination of Kilpatrick, Karve, and Takishita does not teach or suggest "determining, using a processor, without user input, the display mode of the data, the display mode being selected from the group consisting of an occluded mode and a non-occluded mode." App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 16-17. Particularly, 4 Appeal2017-010000 Application 14/276,576 Appellants argue "Takishita does not teach 'determining, using a processor, without user input, the display mode'," and "both Karve and Takishita require the user to provide input, either through a user command, see Karve at col. 3, 11. 38---67, or a physical switch, see Takishita at col. 6, 11. 15-23." App. Br. 16 (emphasis added, citations reformatted); see also Reply Br. 17. Appellants argue "the user [in Takishita] has to specifically select the display mode using a physical switch." App. Br. 16 (citing Takishita 6: 15- 23). Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 4--5. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Ans. 3--4. For additional emphasis, we note although Takishita describes one embodiment of a "display method [being] selected by the manipulation of the display method selecting switch 125" (see Takishita 6:15-18), Takishita also describes "another embodiment of the electronic device" having a "controller [that] automatically selects one of the overlap display function, the multi-display function, and the tiled display function, which is correlated with [a] selected application" on the electronic device (see Takishita 12:9- 18). Ans. 3. Particularly, Takishita describes correlating display modes to: various image-related applications such as a still image capturing function (camera function) and a moving image capturing function (movie function). When each application is correlated with one of the three display methods, the correlated display method is automatically selected in peiforming the application, thereby eliminating the necessity of display method selecting work. 5 Appeal2017-010000 Application 14/276,576 For example, usually the multi-mode is set to a default mode, and the application of the camera function is correlated with the tiled mode. Therefore, the screen becomes the tiled mode when the camera is started, and the screen returns to the multi-mode when the application of the camera function is ended. Takishita 9:29-43 (emphasis added). Thus, we find Takishita discloses determining a display mode using a processor and without user input, as required by claim 1. Ans. 3. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. As such, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, and similarly, independent claims 11 and 20 which recite similar limitations and for which Appellants provide the same arguments, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, not separately argued. App. Br. 13-14. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) and claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. 6 Appeal2017-010000 Application 14/276,576 DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) and claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7