Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2016

14048465 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/048,465 10/08/2013
58027 7590 10/12/2016
H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yong Gook PARK
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.
P3131USC1 7339
EXAMINER
NGO,TONYN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2016 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):
PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONG GOOK PARK, HYUN JIN KIM, and MIN KYU PARK
Appeal2015-006345
Application 14/048,465
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-3, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-006345
Application 14/048,465
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a sensor and
controller for a foldable display device in which the position of an electronic
pen is determined based on the folding angle. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed language in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A terminal, comprising:
a foldable display unit configured to be folded along an
arbitrary axis passing through a point on the foldable display
unit;
a sensor unit configured to detect a folding angle formed
by the foldable display unit when folded along the arbitrary axis;
and
a controller configured to determine coordinate
information where an electronic pen touches a surface of the
foldable display unit based on the folding angle.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Miyazawa
Vertegaal
US 6,411,285 Bl June 25, 2002
US 2007 /0247422 Al Oct. 25, 2007
REJECTION
Claims 1-3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miyazawa and Vertegaal. Final Act. 3-9; Adv. Act. 2.
2
Appeal2015-006345
Application 14/048,465
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of the rejection
of claims 1-3 on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-3.
The Examiner finds the abstract of Miyazawa "teaches finding the
corrected locations ('abcissa and ordinate values of an input point',
[(Miyazawa)] at ABSTRACT) taking into considerations of the folding
angles (which creates parallax problems)." Adv. Act. 2.2
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the Miyazawa
Abstract teaches the disputed limitation. App. Br. 8-10. Specifically,
Appellants argue that "the underlying disclosure in Miyazawa, at best, only
supports the correction of the ordinate of a display point, but not the
correction of the ordinate of the touch point. Therefore, the Examiner erred
in relying on the misrepresentation in Miyazawa's Abstract." App. Br. 8.
Appellants further argue that "citation of, and reliance upon, an abstract
without citation of, and reliance upon, the underlying scientific document is
2 The Examiner relies on an alternate claim mapping in the Final Action.
Compare Adv. Act. 2, with Final Act. 4. Because we find the Examiner did
not err in finding the Miyazawa Abstract teaches the disputed limitation, we
need not address the alternate fact finding and Appellants' arguments related
to that finding are moot.
3
Appeal2015-006345
Application 14/048,465
inappropriate where both the abstract and the underlying document are
available prior art." App. Br. 9 (citing MPEP § 706.02(II) (citing Ex parte
Jones, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1206, 1208 (BPAI 2001) (unpublished))).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred. First, although Appellants argue that the remainder of Miyazawa does
not teach the controller limitation, Appellants do not argue that the Abstract
itself does not teach the limitation. See App. Br. 8-10. "If an appellant fails
to present arguments on a particular issue----or, more broadly, on a particular
rejection-the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Thus, the only disputed issue is whether
the Examiner erred by considering the Abstract.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in relying on the
language of the Abstract. Prior art must be evaluated for what the reference
would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F .2d 7 4 7, 7 50 (CCP A 197 6) ("[T]he
fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling,
since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments,
must be considered.")); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.l (CCPA
1982) (A prior art reference's disclosure is not limited to its examples.); In
re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966) (All of the disclosures in a prior art
reference "must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill
in the art."). Because the Abstract is a part of the reference, it was
appropriate for the Examiner to consider and rely on the abstract's disclosure
in rejecting the claims.
4
Appeal2015-006345
Application 14/048,465
Appellants' citation to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure is
not persuasive. Section 706.02(II}-titled "Reliance on Abstract and
Foreign Language Documents in Support of a Rejection" (emphasis
added}-is directed to situations when the abstract is written in English and
the underlying document is written in a foreign language. It is inapplicable
in this case involving a single English-language document containing an
abstract.
For at least these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness for all claims on appeal. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5