Motorola Mobility LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 2, 2020

2019003320 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2020)

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.
15/244,918 08/23/2016 Scott DeBates MM02083 9900
138908 7590 11/02/2020
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group
(MM Files)
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
AZONGHA, SARDIS F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2020 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):
BIPLaw_docketing@burrusiplaw.com
pburrus@burrusiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT DEBATES
____________

Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Motorola Mobility LLC as the real
party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to an
improved user interface system in which an electronic device includes an
adaptable user interface that is projected along a reflective surface so that the
adaptable user interface is unconstrained by physical elements such as keys,
buttons, or other mechanical user interface devices. (Spec. ¶¶ 5, 28.)
Independent claims 1, 16, and 19, reproduced below, are illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal:
1. A device, comprising:
a first housing portion and a second housing portion;
a reflective surface defining a substantially planar major
surface of the second housing portion;
a reflector, coupled to the first housing portion and
movable relative to the first housing portion, thereby
maintaining a line of sight relationship with the reflective
surface as the first housing portion moves relative to the second
housing portion;
a signal emitter and a signal receiver, supported by the
first housing portion, the signal emitter delivering non-visible
signals to the reflective surface and the signal receiver receiving
reflections of the non-visible signals;
one or more haptic devices, supported by the second
housing portion; and
one or more processors, operable with the signal receiver
and the one or more haptic devices and actuating at least one
haptic device when the signal receiver detects an object
touching the reflective surface from the reflections.
16. A device, comprising:
a first housing portion and a second housing portion;
a reflective surface defining a substantially planar major
surface of the second housing portion;
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

3
a signal emitter and a signal receiver, supported by the
first housing portion, the signal emitter delivering infrared light
to the reflective surface and the signal receiver receiving
reflections of the infrared light;
a projector supported by the first housing portion and
delivering images to the reflective surface defining a user
interface;
a reflector maintaining a line of sight relationship
between the projector and the signal receiver;
one or more haptic devices, supported by the second
housing portion; and
one or more processors, operable with the signal receiver
and the one or more haptic devices, the one or more processors
actuating at least one haptic device when the signal receiver
detects, from the reflections, an object interacting with a user
actuation target projected upon the reflective surface.
19. A method, comprising:
projecting, with a projector, images defining a user
interface along a reflective surface of a device;
redirecting, with a reflector situated between the
projector and the reflective surface, the images to the reflective
surface;
receiving, with a signal receiver, reflections of non-
visible light from the reflective surface after redirection from
the reflector;
determining, with one or more processors, an object
interacting with a user actuation target of the user interface; and
actuating, with the one or more processors in response to
the object interacting with the user actuation target, at least one
haptic device to deliver haptic feedback to the reflective
surface.
Appeal Br. 25, 27–29. (Claims Appendix.)

Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6–10, 14–17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kuribayashi (US 2013/0314380
A1, pub. Nov. 28, 2013), Weber et al. (US 2016/0316185 A1, pub. Oct. 27,
2016) (hereinafter “Weber”), and Amm (US 2012/0227006 A1, pub. Sept. 6,
2012). (Final Act. 2.)
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kuribayashi, Weber, Amm, and Burrough et al. (US
2010/0156818 A1, pub. June 24, 2010) (hereinafter “Burrough”). (Final
Act. 12.)
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kuribayashi, Weber, Amm, Burrough, and Heubel et al.
(US 8,593,409 B1, iss. Nov. 26, 2013) (hereinafter “Heubel”). (Final Act.
14.)
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kuribayashi, Weber, Amm, and Liou et al. (US
2009/0322967 A1, pub. Dec. 31, 2009) (hereinafter “Liou”). (Final Act.
15.)
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kuribayashi, Weber, Amm, Liou, and Sharma et al.
(US 9,791,975 B2, iss. Oct. 17, 2017) (hereinafter “Sharma”). (Final Act.
17.)
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

5
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal and Reply Briefs present the
following issues:2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kuribayashi, Weber, and Amm teaches or suggests the limitation of
a reflector, coupled to the first housing portion and
movable relative to the first housing portion, thereby
maintaining a line of sight relationship with the reflective
surface as the first housing portion moves relative to the second
housing portion,
as recited in independent claim 1. (Appeal Br. 12–16; Reply Br. 7–8.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Kuribayashi, Weber, and Amm teaches or suggests the limitations of
a first housing portion and a second housing portion;
a reflective surface defining a substantially planar major
surface of the second housing portion;
a signal emitter and a signal receiver, supported by the
first housing portion, the signal emitter delivering infrared light
to the reflective surface and the signal receiver receiving
reflections of the infrared light;
a projector supported by the first housing portion and
delivering images to the reflective surface defining a user
interface;
a reflector maintaining a line of sight relationship
between the projector and the signal receiver,
as recited in independent claim 16. (Appeal Br. 16–18; Reply Br. 9.)

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 6, 2018); the Reply Brief
(filed Mar. 13, 2019); the Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 14, 2018); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Jan. 23, 2019) for the respective details.
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

6
Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Kuribayashi, Weber, and Amm teaches or suggests the limitation of
“projecting, with a projector, images defining a user interface along a
reflective surface of a device,” as recited in independent claim 19. (Appeal
Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 9.)
Issue Four: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Kuribayashi, Weber, Amm, and Liou teaches or suggests
[t]he device of claim 16, further comprising a hinge coupling
the first housing portion to the second housing portion, the
reflector supported by the first housing portion and movable
relative to the first housing portion between at least a first
position and a second position to maintain another line of sight
relationship with the reflective surface as the first housing
portion pivots about the hinge relative to the second housing
portion,
as recited in dependent claim 18. (Appeal Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 10.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
First Issue
In finding that the combination of Kuribayashi, Weber, and Amm
teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation at issue, the Examiner
relies on Kuribayashi’s disclosure of: (1) projector 30 and detection target
surface 2, which may be a flat panel such as a liquid crystal display; and (2)
an embodiment wherein a detection device 10a includes a mirror 154, and in
which imaging unit 15 images the range (angle G3 of view) of the display
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

7
surface of display unit 401 reflected by the mirror 154. (Final Act. 2–3,
Ans. 3–5; Kuribayashi Fig. 1, ¶ 47, Fig. 28, ¶¶ 188, 48, Fig. 24, ¶ 177.)
The Examiner further relies on Weber’s disclosure of a projection
device having rotatable mirror 110 in lid 102 that provides both an output to
projector 170 and reflects display area 120 into a field of view for RBG
camera 160. (Final Act. 4, Ans. 5–6; Weber Figs. 1–3, ¶¶ 25, 57.)
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellant argues, inter alia, that in
Kuribayashi,
as the first standalone device, i.e., Kuribayashi’s projector,
moves relative to the second standalone device, i.e., the flat
panel, there is no interaction between the two housings causing
the reflector to maintain the line of sight relationship as set
forth in the claim.
(Reply Br. 8.) Appellant contends that Weber is similar to
Kuribayashi in that
[a]s with Kuribayashi, movement of one device has absolutely
no impact on the other. Thus, in the combination of
Kuribayashi, Weber, and Amm, movement of one standalone
device relative to the other would cause the line of sight
relationship to change and be lost.
(Reply Br. 8, citing Weber ¶¶ 24–25, emphasis in original.)
We agree. Two embodiments of Kuribayashi, corresponding to
Figs. 1 and 28, are reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

8

The first embodiment of Kuribayashi shown in Fig. 1 appears to
show a fixed relationship (with no relative movement possible)
between the projection (projection unit 31 in Fig. 1) and the detection
area (projection image 3 onto detection target surface 2). Similarly,
the second embodiment of Kuribayashi shown in Fig. 28 appears to
show a fixed relationship (with no relative movement possible)
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

9
between display unit 41 on tablet terminal 40 and the detection area
(imaging unit 15) as mirror 154 appears fixed.
Further, a single embodiment of Weber corresponding to Figs.
1 and 2 is reproduced below.

While Weber teaches rotatable mirror 110 (see Figs. 1 and 2
above), rotatable mirror 110 appears to remain stationary after arms
112 and 113 raise lid 102 in place so that rotatable mirror is in its
“open” position. See Weber ¶ 25.
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

10
As neither Kuribayashi nor Weber appear to teach or suggest an
adjustable mirror to correct for movement between the projection and
detection areas and “maintaining a line of sight relationship”, we are
constrained by the record to reverse the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as claims 2–10, 14, and 15 that depend
from independent claim 1. Based on the reversal of the obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1, we also reverse:
a. the rejection of dependent claim 11, as the addition of the
reference Liou does not cure the deficiencies of Kuribayashi,
Weber, and Amm; and
b. the rejection of dependent claims 12 and 13, as the addition of
the reference Sharma does not cure the deficiencies of
Kuribayashi, Weber, Amm, and Liou.
Second Issue
In finding that the combination of Kuribayashi, Weber, and Amm
teaches or suggests the independent claim 16 limitations at issue, in addition
to Kuribayashi’s and Weber’s disclosures stated above regarding the First
Issue, the Examiner further relies on Kuribayashi’s disclosure of: infrared
irradiation units 12 and 13 and imaging unit 15, which images reflected light
of the first infrared light and the second infrared light to image a motion of
the hand or finger of the user on detection target surface 2, and used in
conjunction with projector 30. (Final Act. 7–8, Ans. 6–8; Kuribayashi
Abstract, ¶¶ 56, 126, 53.)
Appellant argues that “Kuribayashi fails to teach a second housing
portion” because
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

11
the projector of Kuribayashi is designed to project images away
from its singular housing to an external object such as walls,
blackboards, projection screens, display monitors, whiteboards,
and ceilings.
(Appeal Br. 17.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that
[t]he detection target surface 2 is not limited to the surface onto
which the projection image 3 is projected, and may be a flat
panel, such as a liquid crystal display (see [¶ 48]), for example,
fig. 28 and [¶ 188], shows an embodiment that includes a first
housing (detection device 10a), a second housing (implemented
as a tablet 40) having an imaging unit 15 embedded within, for
imaging a display surface of the tablet.
(Ans. 4.) Appellant does not expressly argue that Kuribayashi fails to teach
or suggest a second housing portion, but instead states that “the Examiner
expressly acknowledges that even in such an embodiment the flat panel is
‘implemented as a standalone device’ from the alleged first housing
member.” (Reply Br. 7, citing Ans. 3–4.) Whether two devices can be
separately implemented standalone is insufficient to contradict the
Examiner’s findings regarding a first and a second housing portion, as one
skilled in the art recognizes the ability to incorporate standalone devices in
connected housings.
Appellant also argues that, similar to independent claim 1,
the combination of Kuribayashi, Weber, and Amm fails to teach
a reflector maintaining a line of sight relationship between the
signal receiver and the projector as set forth in claim 16.
(Appeal Br. 18, citing Kuribayashi ¶ 47, Fig. 2; Weber, Fig. 2.)
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

12
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Regarding
independent claim 16’s “maintaining a line of sight relationship,” the
Examiner finds that
Based on [¶ 93] of the instant application, output of the
projector and input into the signal receiver (i.e., reflect signal)
are both located within the mirror, therefore, rotating the mirror
would correspondingly rotate both the output of the projector
onto the projection area 120, and the reflected signal input from
the projection area into the signal receiver, thus maintaining the
claimed line of sight.
(Ans. 7). Using Appellant’s disclosure as the basis for interpreting the
claimed “maintain[ing] a line of sight relationship,” the Examiner reasons
that because Weber’s “rotatable mirror 110 provides both an output for the
projector 170 and reflects the display area 120 into a field of view of the
RGB camera 160” (Ans. 8), the combination of Kuribayashi and Weber
teaches or suggests the limitation at issue. We see no error in the
Examiner’s detailed findings, and Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s findings in the Reply, but instead states that
the Examiner’s comments [see Ans. 6–8] confirm that the
combination of Kuribayashi, Weber, and Amm fails to teach the
limitations of claims 16 and 19 for the same reasons the
combination fails to teach the limitations of claim 1 above.
(Reply Br. 9.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 16, as well as dependent claim 17 not argued separately.
Third Issue
Regarding independent claim 19’s limitation at issue, Appellant
reiterates the argument made regarding independent claim 16, that
Kuribayashi fails to teach projecting images on a reflective
surface of a device. To the contrary, the projector of
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

13
Kuribayashi is designed to project images away from its
singular housing to an external objects such as walls,
blackboards, projection screens, display monitors, whiteboards,
and ceilings. Kuribayashi thus expressly teaches away from
projecting images on a reflective surface of a device. This is
true because Kuribayashi teaches projecting images away from
the projection device.
(Appeal Br. 19.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Kuribayashi teaches that
detection target surface 2 could be a flat panel, such as a liquid
crystal display, and for example, fig. 28 and [¶ 188], further
exemplifies such a surface as being a tablet terminal 40 having
an imaging unit 15 embedded within, and a detection device
(10a—i.e., first housing) that includes a mirror 154 for
reflecting a range (angle G3 of view) of the display surface of
the tablet terminal 40 into the imaging unit 15.
(Ans. 9.) The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that
[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have gleaned from
the teachings of fig. 28 that the display surface of the tablet 40
has to be a reflective surface in order for the mirror 154 to be
able to reflect the range G3 of the display surface onto the
imaging unit 15.
(Ans. 9.) We see no error in the Examiner’s detailed findings, and Appellant
does not address the Examiner’s findings in the Reply, but instead states that
the Examiner’s comments [see Ans. 6–8] confirm that the
combination of Kuribayashi, Weber, and Amm fails to teach the
limitations of claims 16 and 19 for the same reasons the
combination fails to teach the limitations of claim 1 above.
(Reply Br. 9.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 19, as well as dependent claim 20 not argued separately.
Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

14
Fourth Issue
Regarding dependent claim 18 limitation at issue, Appellant argues
that
Liou fails to teach any reflector. To the contrary, Liou teaches a
“compact projector” that directly projects light onto a projecting
screen. “The screen area 111 is first adjusted to an appropriate
angle so as to fit the user, and then the projecting direction P of
the compact projector 12 is adjusted, through the rotating frame
14, such that images can be projected precisely on the
projecting screen 15.” Liou, [¶ 31].
(Appeal Br. 21, emphasis in original.)
We agree. The Examiner finds that
Liou teaches a display 11 (first housing) and a projecting screen
15 (second housing), pivotally attached to the display 11, which
allows the display 11 to rotate about axes (X1 and X2) towards
the projecting screen, wherein both the display screen angle can
be adjusted (see fig. 3) and the projecting direction P of the
compact projector 12 can also be adjusted, through the rotating
frame 14, such that images can be projected precisely on the
projecting screen 15 (see fig. 3 and [¶ 31]).
(Ans. 11–12.) The Examiner fails to explain how Liou’s adjusting display
screen and adjusting projecting direction of a compact projector supplies the
disputed limitation, or why one skilled in the art would consider the
adjustment of a projector to be interchangeable with an adjustment of a
reflector.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 18.

Appeal 2019-003320
Application 15/244,918

15

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–10,
14–17, 19,
20
103 Kuribayashi, Weber,
Amm
16, 17, 19,
20
1, 2, 6–
10, 14,
15
3, 4 103 Kuribayashi, Weber,
Amm, Burrough
3, 4
5 103 Kuribayashi, Weber,
Amm, Burrough,
Heubel
5
11, 18 103 Kuribayashi, Weber,
Amm, Liou
11, 18
12, 13 103 Kuribayashi, Weber,
Amm, Liou, and
Sharma
12, 13
Overall
Outcome
16, 17, 19,
20
1–15, 18

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART