Ex Parte Walline et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13747839 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
13/747,839 01/23/2013 Erin K. Walline DC-100842.01 6739
33438 7590 05/02/2017
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
EXAMINER
LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
tmunoz @ tcchlaw. com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIN K. WALLINE, JAMES H. HALLAR,
AARON VOM EIGEN, and ADRIAN TAYLOR1
Appeal 2017-000607
Application 13/747,839
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention relates to a control function of a mobile device, such as
a “home button,” that can be variously associated with different physical
controls on the mobile device, depending on the orientation of the mobile
device (see Spec. Tflf 21—23). For example, the “home button” control
function can be associated with a user control 304 located on the bezel of
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dell Products L.P.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-000607
Application 13/747,839
one edge of the mobile device when it is oriented horizontally, and can be
associated with a user control 306 located on the bezel of a different edge of
the mobile device when it is oriented vertically (see Spec. 123; Fig. 3).
Accordingly, the control function is accessible in the same position relative
to the user regardless of the orientation of the mobile device. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implementable method for facilitating user
interaction with a mobile device, comprising:
associating a first control function with a first user control
located in a first location on the bezel of a mobile device, the first
location comprising a first target operational position;
changing an orientation of the mobile device from a first
orientation to a second orientation; and
associating the first control function with a second user
control located in a second location on the bezel of the mobile
device, the second location maintaining the first target
operational position once the orientation of the mobile device is
changed; and wherein
the bezel of the mobile device comprises a backlit icon that
is illuminated to indicate:
the association of the first control function with the
first user control when the orientation of the mobile device
is the first orientation; and,
the association of the first control function with the
second user control when the orientation of the mobile
device is the second orientation; and,
the first control function comprises a home button control
function and the backlit icon represents the home button control
function.
2
Appeal 2017-000607
Application 13/747,839
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
King US 2006/0238517 A1 Oct. 26,2006
Salman US 2006/0244727 A1 Nov. 2,2006
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claim 1—18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over King and Salman.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend:
[Njowhere within Salmon [sic] and King, taken alone or in
combination is there any disclosure or suggestion of the bezel of
the mobile device comprises a backlit icon that is illuminated to
indicate: the association of the first control function with the
first user control and, the association of the first control function
with the second user control, as required by claims 1, 7[,] and 13
... [T]he examiner cites to a portion of Salmon [sic] which
discloses that a set of character values on each key may be back
lit when it is determined which set of character values are to be
assigned for input key activation. However, it is respectfully
submitted that providing a first control function comprises a
home button control function and the backlit icon represents the
home button control function is patentably distinct from back
lighting a set of character values as disclosed by Salman. . . .
[N]owhere in King nor Salman, taken alone or in combination is
there any disclosure or suggestion of the first control function
comprises a home button control function and the backlit icon
3
Appeal 2017-000607
Application 13/747,839
represents the home button control function, as required by
claims 1, 7[,] and 13.
(App. Br. 4). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
We begin by noting that the Examiner relies on King for all the
limitations of claim 1 except “a backlit icon that is illuminated” (Final Act.
2-A\ Ans. 6—7). King describes an electronic device 100 with “visual guides
180 in positions adjacent the areas 121 on the bezel 120 designated to
perform the user controls so the user may know the general area of the bezel
120 designated for the corresponding user control indicated by the adjacent
visual guide 180” (King 159) (emphases omitted). Further, King describes:
In a further embodiment, the electronic device 100 may be
capable of rotation and may have an orientation sensor ... for
determining the orientation of the device 100. Based on the
sensed orientation, the areas 121 on the bezel 120 designated for
the user controls can be altered or relocated to match the current
orientation of the device 1[0]0.
(King | 60) (emphases omitted). King’s Figures 9A and 9B demonstrate a
change in the orientation of the electronic device that results in user controls
being changed to different areas on the bezel of the device. (See King | 87,
Figs. 9A and 9B).
Salman teaches a keyboard of an electronic device where each key
can be used for multiple functions, e.g., inputting multiple character values,
and where the active character value of a key is backlit (Salman | 51; Fig.
3). We find it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify King’s bezel areas to be backlit when they are actively associated
with user controls, in view of Salman’s teaching of backlighting keys to
show when functions are active. Further, we agree with the Examiner’s
rationale for making this combination: “Salman discloses a known
improvement that can improve usability. One of ordinary skill in the art
4
Appeal 2017-000607
Application 13/747,839
could have included it in King with predictable results.” (Final Act. 4).
That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the benefit of
applying Salman’s backlighting technique to King’s electronic device so that
a user would more easily see when King’s bezel areas were associated with
user controls, and Appellants have not shown this application of Salman’s
technique to King’s device would have been beyond the level of ordinary
skill in the art. See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
(“if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill”).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that neither reference
teaches a “home button control function,” as recited in claim 1, and that the
claimed backlighting of a “home button control function” is distinct from
Salman’s backlighting character values on keys (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 1—2).
Appellants’ Specification provides “actuation of the user control 104 by a
user may result in the ‘home button’ control function displaying a menu of
application icons within the display 102” (Spec. 117). Accordingly, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of a “home button control function,” in
light of the Specification, is a menu function. King discloses that the user
controls associated with bezel areas of the electronic device can include a
“Menu” function (see King 157). Based on the above interpretation, we
find King’s “Menu” function meets the claim 1 limitation of a “home button
control function.”
Further, we note that the Examiner relies on Salman for the general
idea of backlighting a control of an electronic device to indicate an active
function of the control (see Ans. 7). The fact that Salman specifically relates
5
Appeal 2017-000607
Application 13/747,839
to backlighting keys to indicate active character values would not have
dissuaded one of ordinary skill in the art from applying Salman’s
backlighting technique to King’s bezel areas. Rather, backlighting King’s
bezel areas would improve King similarly to Salman by providing better
usability, i.e., showing a user when controls are active to perform particular
functions. Moreover, as noted above, Appellants have not shown this
application of Salman’s technique to the bezel areas of King’s electronic
device would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Finally, in the Reply Brief, Appellants contend the combination of
King and Salman fails to teach certain limitations of claims 4, 10, and 16
(Reply Br. 2). However, these Reply Brief arguments have been waived
because Appellants did not present specific separate arguments regarding
claims 4, 10, and 16 in the Appeal Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
1473, 1474 (BPAI2010) (“Informative”) (“The reply brief is not an
opportunity to make arguments that could have been made during
prosecution, but were not. Nor is the reply brief an opportunity to make
arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to
rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not”).
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2—18 not specifically argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
6
Appeal 2017-000607
Application 13/747,839
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—18 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7