Johan Kildal et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2019

13163070 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)

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.
13/163,070 06/17/2011 Johan Kildal 042933/406940 8910
10949 7590 12/02/2019
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, JIMMY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2019 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHAN KILDAL, JYRKI VEIKKO LESKELÄ,
MIKA ALLAN SALMELA, JARMO ANTERO NIKULA,
and AKI HAPPONEN
____________

Appeal 2018-009120
Application 13/163,070
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–4, 6, 8–14, 16, and 18–21. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the
real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-009120
Application 13/163,070

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to “the transmission of a
message from a communications device to a remote receiver” using a
“bending force,” as shown, for example, in Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C,
reproduced below. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3, Figs. 2A, 2B, 2C.

Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C illustrate the sending of a photo
from a sending mobile phone (device 1) to a receiving
mobile phone (not shown) by bending the sending phone.
Id. at ¶¶ 11, 30.
According to the Specification, a user may include with a transmitted
message a rating relating to the importance of the contents of the message,
such as low importance, normal importance, high importance, and urgent
importance. Id. at ¶ 35. To do so, a controller in user device 1 first
“determines the maximum magnitude of the applied bending force based on
one or more signals received from [a] bending force sensor.” Id. (emphasis
added). Next, the controller compares the determined maximum magnitude
with a plurality of reference force ranges, the number of ranges being equal
Appeal 2018-009120
Application 13/163,070

3
to the number of different ratings. Id. If, for example, the maximum
magnitude is in a first, lowest range (i.e. above a first threshold, but below
a second threshold), the controller is operable to adapt the message by
including a data item indicative of a first rating (in this example, low
importance). Id. Similarly, if the determined maximum magnitude is in a
second higher range (i.e. above the second threshold but below a third
threshold), the controller is operable to adapt the message to include a data
item indicative of a second rating (e.g. normal importance) (or if in a third
range, high importance; or a fourth range, urgent importance). Id.
Also, according to the Specification, the controller “may be operable
to adapt the content item that is to be sent in the message based on the
determined magnitude.” Id. at ¶ 36 (emphasis added). For example, the
user may indicate that they wish to send an “emoticon” and the controller
may adapt the “emoticon” based on the determined magnitude. For
example, a bending force in a first range may result in a smiling emoticon,
and a bending force in a second range which is higher than the first range
may result in a laughing emoticon. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method comprising:
receiving by a processor a bend indication signal as a
function of a bending force being applied to a communications
device that is bendable from an initial configuration to a bent
configuration in response to a manually applied bending force,
wherein the bend indication signal is interpreted as an instruction
to transmit a message, wherein the communications device is
flexible so as to return back towards the initial configuration on
release of the bending force, wherein the bend indication signal
is provided by a sensor configured to detect and provide said
Appeal 2018-009120
Application 13/163,070

4
bend indication signal upon bending from the initial
configuration to the bent configuration and from the bent
configuration back towards the initial configuration;
causing by the processor the message to be transmitted
from the communications device to a remote receiver in response
to the bend indication signal received by the processor, the bend
indication signal indicating that the bending force has
subsequently fallen below a predetermined threshold
corresponding to the communications device being released
flexibly from the manually applied bending force to return from
the bent configuration towards the initial configuration;
determining an orientation of the communications device
with respect to one or more remote receivers and identifying the
remote receiver to which the message is to be transmitted based
at least in part on the determined orientation of the
communications device with respect to one or more remote
receivers,
determining a maximum magnitude of the bending force;
and
prior to causing the message to be transmitted, adapting
the message based on the determined maximum magnitude.
App. Br. 18–19 (Claims Appendix).

The Applied References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability of the claims on appeal:
Geurts US 2007/0252721 A1 Nov. 1, 2007
Jeong US 2009/0140997 A1 June 4, 2009
Nurmi US 2010/0011291 A1 Jan. 14, 2010
Kim US 2010/0120470 A1 May 13, 2010

Appeal 2018-009120
Application 13/163,070

5
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner made the following rejection of the claims on appeal:
Claims 1–4, 6, 8–14, 16, and 18–21 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Jeong, Nurmi, and
Geurts. Final Act. 6–15.

ANALYSIS2
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Kim, Jeong, Nurmi, and Geurts renders obvious claims 1–4, 6, 8–14, 16, and
18–21, including independent claims 1, 11, and 21. See App. Br. 9–17;
Reply Br. 1–8. Appellant argues the appealed claims as a group, except for
dependent claims 8 and 18, which Appellant argues as a separate group.
See App. Br. 9–17. Thus, for purposes of our analysis, we select
independent claim 1 and dependent claim 8 as the representative claims, and
any claim not argued separately will stand or fall with our analysis of the
rejection of claims 1 and 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that Kim, alone or in combination with other
cited art, teaches “determining a maximum magnitude of the bending force,”
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9 (emphasis added); see id. at 10–13. We
find Appellant’s argument persuasive.

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered Appellant’s Appeal Brief
filed April 19, 2018 (“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed
September 26, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 2,
2018 (“Ans.”); the Final Office Action mailed November 9, 2017 (“Final
Act.”); and Appellant’s Specification filed June 17, 2011 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2018-009120
Application 13/163,070

6
Kim generally relates to a mobile terminal (e.g., cellular phone)
equipped with a flexible display that can be bent or folded to control or
perform various operations of the mobile terminal. Kim, Abstract, ¶¶ 36,
51–53. Kim discloses various sensors that alone or in combination
determine whether the flexible display is “bent or folded and what part of the
flexible display is bent or folded.” Kim ¶ 53; see Kim ¶ 86 (“[T]he
controller 180 may determine whether the first display module 151a is bent
and what part of the first display module 151a is bent based on a signal
output by the sensing unit 140.”) (emphasis added). Kim further discloses
“it is possible to choose and execute one of a plurality of menu items
displayed on [a] second display module 151b according to whether the first
display module 151a is bent or folded.” Kim ¶ 90 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Kim discloses a communications device
(e.g., mobile phone) having two configurations, namely an initial or unbent
configuration and a bent configuration, and that the communications device
determines “a bend occurs when the communications device is bent in the
bent configuration with a magnitude of a current bending force being
greater than or equal to some inherent sensor threshold.” Ans. 3 (emphasis
altered). According to the Examiner, Kim teaches that any “current”
bending force being greater than or equal to some inherent sensor threshold
(which would trigger the bent configuration) is a “maximum magnitude” of
the “current” bending force. Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted); see Final Act. 7–8.
Appellant responds: “Even if Kim were to disclose a [sensor]
threshold, such as a minimum [sensor] threshold, be met in order to perform
a resultant action, such a disclosure does not imply nor suggest that Kim
determines a maximum magnitude of a bending force that has been applied
Appeal 2018-009120
Application 13/163,070

7
to the device.” App. Br. 10; see id. at 11 (“There is no need or suggestion in
Kim to determine a maximum or greatest magnitude of the bending force,
because the outcome or action is only alleged to be provided when the
minimum threshold is reached.”); Reply Br. 2–3 (“Appellant submits that
Kim is not concerned with determining a maximum magnitude of a bending
force because Kim only determines when a threshold bend (minimum)
bending force has occurred.”). Appellant argues “[t]he maximum
[magnitude] is not any force above a threshold as the Examiner alleges, but
rather a greatest magnitude reached during a bending force, which . . . is not
determined by the cited art.” App. Br. 12. Appellant also argues claim 1
“do[es] not recite ‘current bending force,’” and “[i]t is clear from the
wording of the claims that the magnitude of the bending force can change
over the course of the bending, and the maximum magnitude is a maximum
over a duration of time.” Reply Br. 4. We agree with Appellant. Although
the Examiner finds Kim teaches determining whether a magnitude of a
bending force is greater than or equal to some inherent sensor threshold
(i.e., a minimum sensor threshold), we find the Examiner does not provide
sufficient evidence or technical reasoning to show Kim teaches determining
a maximum magnitude of such a bending force.
Based on the foregoing, we find the Examiner has not persuasively
shown how Kim teaches “determining a maximum magnitude of the bending
force,” and a fortiori, “prior to causing the message to be transmitted,
adapting the message based on the determined maximum magnitude,” as
recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner also has not persuasively
shown how the other cited art remedies this deficiency. Because we find
this issue dispositive here, we do not address Appellant’s other arguments.
Appeal 2018-009120
Application 13/163,070

8
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
independent claims 11 and 21, which recite commensurate limitations.
Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2–4, 6, 8–10, 12–14, 16, and 18–20, which
depend therefrom.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 8–14,
16, 18–21
103 Kim, Jeong,
Nurmi, Geurts
1–4, 6, 8–14,
16, 18–21

REVERSED