Appeal No. 2006-3033
Application No. 10/748,992
Appellant further argues that Manchester relates to changing the
orientation of a displayed object based on properties of the object [brief,
page 9, ¶ 1].
The examiner disagrees, again noting that Manchester is relied on as
teaching these limitations [answer, page 14].
We find that appellant’s arguments misconstrue the term “object” as
disclosed by Manchester. We note again that Manchester’s invention can
sense the physical orientation of “objects” where an “object” to be sensed
broadly encompasses not only a display device, but also a person [page 2,
¶0019]. As discussed supra, Manchester explicitly discloses sensor 16 is
capable of sensing the orientation of a display device and/or the orientation
of a person viewing the display device [¶0021]. Therefore, we find that
Manchester teaches automatically orientating rendered graphical objects
based at least in part upon a physical orientation of a user with respect to
the device, as claimed. We also agree with the examiner that Manchester
teaches changing object display parameters to provide at least one of an
optimized object display and an optimized viewing position [see e.g., ¶¶
0019, 0025-0028 and 0035]. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection of representative claim 13 as being
obvious over Browning in view of Manchester. We further note that
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007