Pelissier, Gerald R. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

13832782 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 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.
13/832,782 03/15/2013 Gerald R. Pelissier DC-101469.01 3561
160816 7590 01/28/2020
Terrile, Cannatti & Chambers, LLP - Dell
P.O. Box 203518
Austin, TX 78720
EXAMINER
ABOU EL SEOUD, MOHAMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GERALD R. PELISSIER, VINH X. BUI, and ALAN LUECKE
____________

Appeal 2019-001530
Application 13/832,782
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, 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, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18, which are
all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Dell Products L.P. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 This Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Aug.
7, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 11, 2018), the Examiner’s
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 18, 2018) and Answer
Appeal 2019-001530
Application 13/832,782

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to managing the active area of a
touch-sensitive display, e.g., automatically resizing the dimensions of the
active area. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 8.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. A computer-implementable method for managing the
active area of a touch-sensitive display, comprising:
providing an information handling system with a touch
screen, the touch screen comprising a touch-sensitive display and
a bezel associated with the touch-sensitive display, the bezel
being raised relative to the touch-sensitive display, the bezel
enclosing optical sensors positioned around a perimeter of the
touch-sensitive display;
receiving user input data from a user, the user input data
comprising a request to resize the active area of the touch-
sensitive display, the active area comprising a predetermined
area of the touch-sensitive display that is operable to display an
image and to receive user input;
processing active area data to determine the relationship
of the current dimensions of the active area to the inside
dimensions of the bezel associated with the touch-sensitive
display; and
processing the user input data to initiate active area
resizing operations; and wherein
the active area resizing operations automatically resize
the dimensions of the active area to a set of predetermined
dimensions, the set of predetermined dimension being based

(“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 11, 2018), and the original Specification filed Mar. 15,
2013 (“Spec.”).

Appeal 2019-001530
Application 13/832,782

3
upon the bezel being raised relative to the touch-sensitive
display;
the difference between the set of predetermined
dimensions and the inside dimensions of the bezel comprises an
inactive area of the touch-sensitive display that is configured to
not display an image when the active area is automatically
resized; and
the difference between the set of predetermined
dimensions and the inside dimensions of the bezel comply with
a predetermined certification requirement, compliance with the
predetermined certification requirement providing compliance
with a Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL) testing
requirement.
Appeal Br. 7 (App. A).
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Parent et al. US 2004/0145598 A1 July 29, 2004
Shin et al. US 2010/0289825 A1 Nov. 18, 2010
Susani US 2012/0038571 A1 Feb. 16, 2012
Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Susani in view of Parent and
Applicant’s admitted prior art (“AAPA”). See Final Act. 2–9.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Susani in view of Parent, AAPA, and Shin. See
Final Act. 9–10.
Appeal 2019-001530
Application 13/832,782

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 17, and 18
Addressing independent claims 1, 7, and 13, Appellant argues that
“Parent does not disclose or suggest providing a resizing operation where the
difference between the set of predetermined dimensions and the inside
dimensions of the touch-sensitive display’s bezel compl[ies] with a
predetermined certification requirement.” Appeal Br. 4. According to
Appellant, the portion of Parent cited by the Examiner is a “mere disclosure
of the Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL) testing requirement to
ensure a base level of compliance among certified graphic display
subsystems,” and “[t]his deficiency of Parent is not cured by Susani or the
Background Section.” Id. (citing Parent ¶ 4). Appellant further argues that
the proposed combination of Susani, Parent, and AAPA, and in particular
Susani, fails to teach “the active area resizing operations automatically
resizing the dimensions of the active area to a set of predetermined
dimensions which are based upon the bezel being raised relative to the
touch-sensitive display.” Reply Br. 1; see Appeal Br. 5.
These conclusory statements, lacking evidence or explanation, are
unpersuasive. See Ex parte Belinne, Appeal No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL
2477843 at *3–4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative) (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/fd0
9004693.pdf) (finding Appellant did not show error in the Examiner’s
rejection where the Examiner made extensive specific fact finding with
respect to each of the argued claims and, in response, Appellant restated
elements of the claim language and simply argued that the elements were
missing from the reference); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Appeal 2019-001530
Application 13/832,782

5
Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.”); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (explaining that, on appeal to the Board, Appellant has the burden
to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“[M]ere argument and conclusory statements . . .
cannot establish patentability.”) (citations omitted). Appellant has not
shown error in the Examiner’s finding of obviousness based on the
combination of Susani, Parent, and AAPA.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that a resizing operation in
which “the difference between the set of predetermined dimensions and the
inside dimensions of the bezel comply with a predetermined certification
requirement” as claimed would have been obvious in view of a combination
of Susani’s teaching of automatically resizing the active area of a touch-
sensitive display with Parent’s teaching of the Windows Hardware Quality
Labs (WHQL) certification program, which requires “any touch
implementation that has a raised bezel to also have a 20mm border around
the active display area in order to facilitate ease of operation for edge swipe
gestures,” as taught by AAPA (Spec. ¶ 5). See Final Act. 3–6 (citing Susani
¶¶ 54–57; Parent ¶ 4; Spec. ¶ 5); Ans. 6–8. We also agree with the
Examiner that “automatically resiz[ing] the dimensions of the active area to
a set of predetermined dimensions, the set of predetermined dimensions
being based upon the bezel being raised relative to the touch-sensitive
display” as claimed would have been obvious over a combination of
Susani’s teaching of automatically resizing the active area of a touch-
Appeal 2019-001530
Application 13/832,782

6
sensitive display with AAPA’s teaching of the WHQL requirement for touch
implementations having a raised bezel to have a 20 mm border around the
active display area. See Final Act. 3, 5–6 (citing Susani ¶¶ 54–55; Spec.
¶ 5).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 7, and 13, as well as dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, and
18 not separately argued by Appellant, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Susani in view of Parent and AAPA.
Claims 4, 10, and 16
Addressing dependent claims 4, 10, and 16, Appellant argues that
“nowhere within Susani, Parent, [AAPA] and Shin is there any disclosure or
suggestion of . . . the active area resizing operations incrementally resiz[ing]
the dimensions of the active area in predetermined increments.” Appeal
Br. 5. Appellant acknowledges that “the examiner cites to a portion of Shin
which discloses image zooming where the image is zoomed from a
magnification of 1.1 to a magnification of 3 in increments of 0.1.” Id.; see
Final Act. 9–10 (citing Shin ¶ 68).
Similar to above, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument
because it is a conclusory statement without evidence or explanation.
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s finding of obviousness
based on the combination of Susani, Parent, AAPA, and Shin.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that “the active area
resizing operations incrementally resiz[ing] the dimensions of the active area
in predetermined increments” as claimed would have been obvious over a
combination of Susani’s teaching of automatically resizing the active area of
a touch-sensitive display with Shin’s teaching of incremental image zooming
Appeal 2019-001530
Application 13/832,782

7
on a touch-sensitive display. See Final Act. 3, 9–10 (citing Susani ¶¶ 54–55;
Shin ¶ 68); Ans. 8–9. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Susani and Shin to provide incremental resizing of the active
area in order to “provide a simple way to provide the user with a better way
to control the resizing process.” See Ans. 9 (citing Shin ¶ 8 (“provide an
easy and fast image zooming method for a mobile terminal having a touch
screen”); Final Act. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 4, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Susani in view of Parent, AAPA, and Shin.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–8,
11–14, 17,
18
103(a) Susani, Parent,
AAPA
1, 2, 5–8,
11–14, 17,
18

4, 10, 16 103(a) Susani, Parent,
AAPA, Shin
4, 10, 16
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–8,
10–14, 16–
18

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