Ex Parte Shiba

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2016

13666451 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2016)

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.
13/666,451 11/01/2012 Yutaka SHIBA 1946-0007 7957
60803 7590 11/17/2016
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
EXAMINER
DINH, DUC Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YUTAKA SHIBA
____________

Appeal 2015-008134
Application 13/666,4511
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1‒10 and 12‒14, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-008134
Application 13/666,451

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to a touch screen device where a user
touches the screen, causing the first information displayed to be replaced
with second information. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal and reads as follows:
1. An information processing device, comprising:
a position determination unit configured to, on the basis
of a touch position of an input object on a display unit that
displays first information, determine a touch on a display object
that displays second information associated with the first
information;
an operation input determination unit configured to
determine if a predetermined operation is input to the display
object; and
a display processing unit configured to, on the basis of
determination results obtained by the position determination
unit and the operation input determination unit, move a display
position of the first information so that the second information
is displayed at a position in which the moved first information
has been displayed,
wherein the display processing unit changes the second
information displayed in a second display area in accordance
with a movement direction of a first display area.

The Examiner’s Rejections2
Claims 1‒3, 5, 9, and 12‒14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Matas (US 2009/0178007 A1; July 9, 2009) and Kao
(US 2009/0066701 A1; Mar. 12, 2009). Final Act. 3‒6.

2 In the Final Action, the Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appeal 2015-008134
Application 13/666,451

3
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Matas, Kao, and Alameh (US 2010/0271312 A1; Oct. 28, 2010). Final Act.
6‒7.
Claims 6‒8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matas, Kao, and Hofmeister (US 7,676,767 B2; Mar. 9,
2010). Final Act. 7‒9.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Matas and Kao. App. Br. 14‒17. In particular, Appellant
argues Kao does not teach or suggest “wherein the display processing unit
changes the second information displayed in a second display area in
accordance with a movement direction of a first display area.” App. Br. 15.
Kao teaches a touch screen device that allows a user to flip between pages of
a device. Kao ¶¶ 29‒30. If the user touches the bottom right corner and

and claims 1, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Final Act. 2‒3.
However, these rejections were withdrawn in the Answer. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2015-008134
Application 13/666,451

4
swipes left, the page will flip to the next page (e.g., P9->P10 in Fig. 3). Id.
If the user touches the bottom left corner and swipes right, the page will flip
to the previous page (e.g., P9->P8 in Fig. 4). Id. Appellant argues the
Examiner erred because P8 and P10 are static pages of a document that
remain unchanged when the user touches P9. App. Br. 15. Appellant argues
that once the respective images of P8 and P10 are displayed, nothing is
changed based on the movement direction on the original page, P9. Id.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. As a matter of
claim construction, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim
terms, consistent with the specification, as would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Claim 1 recites “wherein the
display processing unit changes the second information displayed in a
second display area in accordance with a movement direction of a first
display area.” Claim 1 does not require the second information to change
after it is initially displayed as a result of the user’s contact with the device.
Instead, claim 1 merely requires that the display processing unit “changes
the second information displayed in a second display area in accordance
with a movement direction.” Emphasis added.
Kao teaches changing the second information displayed in a second
display area because the information displayed in the main display area
changes from the content of P9 to the content of P10 when the user swipes
from right to left in a first display area (i.e., the bottom of the screen).
Alternatively, if the user swipes the bottom of the screen from left to right,
the information displayed in the main (i.e., second) display area changes
from P9 to P8. Accordingly, Kao also teaches changing the second
Appeal 2015-008134
Application 13/666,451

5
information displayed “in accordance with a movement direction of a first
display area” because Kao displays P10 if the user swipes in one direction,
but displays P8 if the user swipes in the other direction. We, therefore, agree
with and adopt the Examiner’s findings that Kao teaches the disputed
limitation and sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues the
patentability of claims 2‒10 and 12‒14 for the same reasons as claim 1. See
App. Br. 17‒19. We, therefore, also sustain the rejections of claims 2‒10
and 12‒14.

DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1‒10 and 12‒
14.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED