Juha Arrasvuori et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2021

2020001907 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2021)

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.
14/357,444 05/09/2014 Juha Arrasvuori 042933/446234 8243
10949 7590 07/13/2021
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
One South at The Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
KEATON, SHERROD L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2021 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 JUHA ARRASVUORI, KONG QIAO WANG, and
ERIKA PIIA PAULIINA REPONEN
Appeal 2020-001907
Application 14/357,444
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BETH Z. SHAW, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 9, 10, 16–19, 24, 31, and 39–44.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia
Technologies Oy. Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001907
Application 14/357,444
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a user interface method and apparatus for
providing deformation-sensitive input.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising,
enabling a plurality of user selectable control elements to be
displayed, wherein each of the plurality of user selectable control
elements is associated with a respective application;
detecting a user input wherein the user input comprises
physically deforming at least a portion of a housing of an apparatus,
wherein the physical deformation comprises a change in size or shape
of the housing of the apparatus; and
in response to detecting the user input, enabling at least one
additional user selectable
control element, not previously displayed among the plurality
of user selectable control elements,
to be currently displayed, the at least one additional user
selectable control element is associated with at least one of the
plurality of user selectable control elements, wherein the at least one
additional user selectable control element is concurrently displayed
with the plurality of user selectable control elements on a display, in
dependence upon the physical deformation made to the housing of the
apparatus, the at least one additional user selectable control element
providing
a specific function to be performed that is associated with the
respective application of the at least one of the plurality of user
selectable control elements, wherein a number of additional user
selectable control elements displayed is dependent upon a magnitude
of the physical deformation.
Appeal 2020-001907
Application 14/357,444
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kang US 2010/0141605 A1 Jun. 10, 2010
Kim US 2011/0069024 A1 Mar. 24, 2011
Lee US 2008/0074399 A1 Mar. 27, 2008
Poupyrev US 2004/0008191 A1 Jan. 15, 2004
Van de Ven US 2008/0094367 A1 Apr. 24, 2008
Moore US 2010/0123724 A1 May 20, 2010

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 9, 10, 16–19, 24, 31, 39, 41, 42, 44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kang, Kim, Lee, Poupyrev, and Van
De Ven. Final Act. 2–10.
Claims 40 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kang, Kim, Lee, Poupyrev, Van De Ven, and Moore.
Final Act. 10–11.

OPINION
To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal
is taken and (ii) the Answer. On this record, we see no error in the
Examiner’s reliance on the cited references for collectively teaching or
suggesting the elements recited in the pending claims.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues Poupyrev does not teach or
suggest “that the user interface item or viewable data provides a specific
function to be performed associated with the respective application of the
user interface element.” Br. 6. Appellant argues that “Poupyrev merely
Appeal 2020-001907
Application 14/357,444
4
presents data associated with the user interface item and provides for
transparency and/or zooming controls to display said data.” Id. at 6–7.
Appellant argues that “Poupyrev only provides techniques for controlling the
transparency and/or size of data associated with a user interface item not
providing a specific function to be performed that is associated with the
respective application of the at least one of the plurality of user selectable
control elements, as recited by the independent claims.” Id. at 7.
We are not persuaded by these arguments at least because the
Examiner relies on Lee, not Poupyrev alone, to teach the disputed element.
Ans. 3; Final Act. 5 (citing Lee, Figs. 4A-C; ¶¶ 30–33). Appellant does not
dispute these findings, and we discern no error therein. Moreover, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Poupyrev also teaches a viewable item that
when selected will perform a function of displaying attached data. Ans. 3
(citing Poupyrev, Fig. 8, ¶ 213).
Appellant also argues the references do not teach or suggest “the at
least one additional user selectable control element is associated with at least
one of the plurality of user selectable control elements” and “wherein a
number of additional user selectable control elements displayed is dependent
upon a magnitude of the physical deformation, the physical deformation
comprises a change in size or shape of the housing of the apparatus.” Br. 8–
9. We are not persuaded by this argument because we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Figures 2 and 3 of Van De Ven provide selectable
control elements and if user adds pressure at range (i.e., magnitude)
additional associated selectable elements are presented (i.e., 10-20 selectable
items can be expanded to more granular selectable items 15-20). Ans. 5; Van
De Ven Figs. 2–3. In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical
reasoning to the contrary, we find no reversible error.
Appeal 2020-001907
Application 14/357,444
5
Appellant also disputes the propriety of the combination of Van De
Ven with Poupyrev. Br. 7, 8. We note that Appellant does not dispute the
combinability of the other cited references. See Br. 7, 8. Appellant argues
that “changing the graphical user interface means of Poupyrev to enable
scaling an image dependent on a value of pressure registered by a touch
screen would block visibility of the display screen as such Poupyrev’s
apparatus includes a 2D position sensor located on the back of the apparatus
such that the user interaction with the apparatus does not occlude the visual
screen, thereby making it easier to maintain the maximum visibility of the
screen all the time during operation of the apparatus.” Id. Appellant also
argues that Van De Ven and Poupyrev “do not relate to one another.” Id.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. An explicit teaching,
suggestion, or motivation in the references is not necessary to support a
conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
415–16 (2007); In re Ethicon, Appeal 2015-1696 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2017)
(Order). The Supreme Court has instructed that “a court must ask whether
the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 417), and apply
“an expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness (id. at 415).
As the Examiner explains, and we agree, Poupyrev provides sensors
for detecting force, touch, pressure, rotation, and touch. Ans. 3 (Citing
Poupyrev ¶¶ 299, 303). Van De Ven also uses touch and pressure sensors.
Id. (citing Van De Ven ¶ 16). “Therefore utilizing the pressure input
established in both applications would provide a combination to allow the
system further access to display capabilities executed by the pressure input.”
Id. “Poupyrev provides a deformation where the size/shape of the housing is
deformed, along with touch and pressure sensors, while Van De Ven
Appeal 2020-001907
Application 14/357,444
6
provides deformation from touch and pressure to a screen.” Id. “Both
Poupyrey and Van De Ven use the deformation functionality to interact with
content on the display.” Id.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily-skilled artisan
at the time of the invention to combine Poupyrev’s disclosure of deformation
of the housing along with touch and pressure sensors with Van De Ven’s
teachings of a touch and pressure to a screen because Van De Ven is also
directed to user interaction (e.g., using pressure) with content on a display.
(see Van De Ven ¶ 16). Because both references are directed to enhancing
features of user interfaces, the ordinarily-skilled artisan would have
reasonably used Van De Ven’s range of pressure values (i.e., magnitude of
physical deformation), even if Poupyrev does not explicitly teach ranges of
magnitude (although Poupyrev teaches zoomable items that are presented
with additional information as user applies more pressure (Poupyrev ¶¶ 338-
339; Final Act. 6)).
Moreover, such a combination is an obvious predictable variation of
known elements. “The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417.
The ordinarily-skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton,” would be able to fit the teachings of Van De Ven and
Poupyrev together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result the invention,
(along with the other cited references, which are not discussed in the Brief.)
Id. at 420–21. Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the proposed
combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art,” the proposed modification would have been well
Appeal 2020-001907
Application 14/357,444
7
within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.

Dependent Claim 39
Regarding dependent claim 39, Appellant argues Kang does not teach
or suggest “wherein each user selectable control element associated with the
application provides a shortcut to at least one of a function associated with
the application or a content item associated with the application” as recited
by dependent claim 39. Br. 9. We are not persuaded by this argument
because we agree with the Examiner’s findings that user input allows preset
content to be displayed based on certain bend inputs. Ans. 5 (citing Kang ¶¶
32, 33, 49–54). The preset content provides an access function and allows a
user to skip a normal method of navigating through menus to gain access to
viewable items. Id. In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical
reasoning to the contrary, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 39.
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claims 1 or 39 above, the remaining pending
claims therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
Appeal 2020-001907
Application 14/357,444
8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 9, 10,
16–19, 24,
31, 39, 41,
42, 44
103 Kang, Kim, Lee,
Poupyrev, Van De
Ven
1–4, 9, 10,
16–19, 24,
31, 39, 41,
42, 44

40, 43 103 Kang, Kim, Lee,
Poupyrev, Van De
Ven, Moore
40, 43
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 9, 10,
16–19, 24,
31, 39, 40–
44

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED