Ex Parte Takabe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2013

10952767 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MASAAKI TAKABE, TADAO OGAKI, and
MASAHIRO TORII
____________________

Appeal 2011-006057
Application 10/952,767
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006057
Application 10/952,767

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 12-24, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented an apparatus, program, and method for
displaying a document on a display, selecting an arbitrary object contained
in the displayed document, and accepting a user input for the selected object.
Specification ¶ 0001.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 12, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
12. An electronic apparatus comprising:
a display unit for displaying a display range of a
document, the display range being a portion of a document
visible on a display, the document containing one or more
selectable objects that are selectable by a user; and
a focusing means for determining which selectable
object has the smallest vertical distance from a center
position of a display range on the display unit, subject to a
minimum precision threshold, and for setting the input
focus on the determined object.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Sep. 14, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 7, 2011),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 8, 2010), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Dec. 10, 2009).
Appeal 2011-006057
Application 10/952,767

3
DeStefano
Martinez
US 6,075,531
US 7,509,592B1
Jun. 13, 2000
Mar. 24, 2009

REJECTION
Claims 12-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martinez and DeStefano.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12-24
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez and DeStefano
turns on whether the combination of Martinez and DeStefano teaches or
suggests “a focusing means for determining which selectable object has the
smallest vertical distance from a center position of a display range on the
display unit, subject to a minimum precision threshold, and for setting the
input focus on the determined object.”

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. 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 the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.
The Appellants contend that the combination of Martinez and
DeStefano fails to teach or suggest “a focusing means for determining which
Appeal 2011-006057
Application 10/952,767

4
selectable object has the smallest vertical distance from a center position of a
display range on the display unit, subject to a minimum precision threshold,
and for setting the input focus on the determined object,” as per claim 12.
App. Br. 13-16 and Reply Br. 2-6. We disagree with the Appellants.
Claim 12 recites “[a]n electronic apparatus comprising…a
document…containing one or more selectable objects…and…a focusing
means for determining which selectable object has the smallest vertical
distance from a center position.” That is, claim 12 broadly only requires a
document with a single object and we find that a single object on a
document must have the smallest vertical distance from a center position.
Applying the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim 12 only
requires an apparatus that displays a single object.
DeStefano describes a computer system that includes a graphical user
interface that determines the closest window to a pointer based on distance.
Ans. 7-8 and DeStefano 2:44-50, 11:43-48. DeStefano explicitly describes
the handle pointer routine receives a vector defining the distance relative to a
start or current position. Ans. 7-8 (citing DeStefano 11:43-48). As such, the
combination of Martinez and DeStefano describe a focusing means that
displays an object and accordingly teach or suggest claim 12 and claim 24.
The Appellants further contend that the combination of Martinez and
DeStefano fail to teach or suggest detecting two or more selectable objects
and the input focus is placed on the object with the least vertical and
horizontal distance, as per claims 13-23. App. Br. 16-23 and Reply Br. 6-13.
We disagree with the Appellants. As discussed supra, DeStefano describes
a vector that determines the closest object from a start or current position.
Ans. 7-8 (citing DeStefano 11:43-48). That is, DeStefano describes
Appeal 2011-006057
Application 10/952,767

5
determining the closest window or object based on the distance from a
position, which can include a center position. As such, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Martinez and DeStefano teaches or
suggests claims 13-23.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 12-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez and DeStefano.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 12-24 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martinez and DeStefano is sustained.

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

tj