Appeal 2007-1100
Application 10/384,642
front of and above the images (i.e., the user “looks down” on the images
from above).
But viewing this same ring-like array of images from a plane
perpendicular to the images themselves (i.e., the plane perpendicular to the x
and y axis of each image) effectively transforms the viewer’s overhead
perspective of the ring-like array into a frontal perspective of a horizontal
array of images with varying sizes. That is, changing the point of view to a
head-on position directly in front of the ring-like formation would result in
the images appearing in a horizontal strip across the screen, with the images
other than the foregoing image decreasing in size with their horizontal
distance from the midpoint of the strip.
In our view, the skilled artisan would readily have recognized that
providing a frontal perspective resulting in a horizontal strip of images -- a
feature suggested by Angiulo -- in lieu of the overhead perspective used in
Miyao would, among other things, recover areas of the LCD display screen
that would otherwise be occupied by images in the array. These recovered
areas of the display screen could then be made available for other display
purposes – a potentially useful feature given the relative scarcity of available
display areas on small screens. Importantly, such a modification would not
affect the ability to consecutively scroll through the array of images and
enlarge a selected image; rather, the modification would merely affect the
user’s perspective of the images in the array.
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1. Since Appellant has not separately argued the
patentability of claims 6 and 9, these claims fall with representative claim 1.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013