Ex Parte Yamagishi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2013

11603611 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YOSHIKAZU YAMAGISHI and MASATO MATSUMURA
____________

Appeal 2010-012362
Application 11/603,611
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-012362
Application 11/603,611

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a composite displaying
unit displaying a predetermined sub-screen 32 on the screen 30 and the main
screen downscaled 31 so that the whole main screen is displayed on the
remaining range of the screen when the mouse operation determining unit
determines, during the full-screen display, that the moving operation is a
predetermined first movement. See Abstract; Figs. 5 and 6.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An image displaying apparatus for a computer that is
capable of accepting an operation of a mouse and selectively
executing one of a full-screen display and a frame display on a
screen of a monitor, the apparatus comprising:
a main screen generating unit that generates a
predetermined image on the screen;
a full-screen displaying unit that displays the image in the
full-screen display;
a first mouse operation determining unit that detects a
moving operation of the mouse to determine whether the
moving operation is a predetermined first movement;
a full-screen display detecting unit that detects whether the
image on the screen is in the full-screen display; and
a composite displaying unit that displays a predetermined
sub-screen on the screen and the main screen that is downscaled
so that the entire main screen is displayed on the remaining
portion of the screen when the first mouse operation
Appeal 2010-012362
Application 11/603,611

3
determining unit determines, during the full-screen display, that
the moving operation is the first movement.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ludolph (U.S. Pat. No.5,874,958, Feb. 23, 1999)
in view of Jones (U.S. Pat. No.6,654,036 B1, Nov. 25, 2003).
2. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ludolph, Jones, and Ackerschewski (U.S. Pat.
7,149,968 B1, Dec. 12, 2006, filed Jan. 21, 2002).
3. The Examiner rejected claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ludolph, Jones, and Sie (U.S. 2003/0233656 A1,
Dec. 18, 2003).
4. The Examiner rejected claims 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ludolph, Jones, Sie, and Baker (U.S. 7,224,382 B2,
May 29, 2007, filed Apr. 8, 2003).
5. The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ludolph, Jones, Sie, Baker and Shintani (U.S.
6,490,002 B1, Dec. 3, 2002).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Ludolph and Jones teaches the limitation of:
a composite displaying unit that displays a predetermined
sub-screen on the screen and the main screen that is downscaled
so that the entire main screen is displayed on the remaining
portion of the screen when the first mouse operation determining
Appeal 2010-012362
Application 11/603,611

4
unit determines, during the full-screen display, that the moving
operation is the first movement

as recited in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination of Ludolph and Jones does not
teach the limitation of:
a composite displaying unit that displays a predetermined
sub-screen on the screen and the main screen that is downscaled
so that the entire main screen is displayed on the remaining
portion of the screen when the first mouse operation determining
unit determines, during the full-screen display, that the moving
operation is the first movement

as recited in claim 1 (Br. 8-9). Jones describes that if the likelihood exists
that a user activity site will move into an obstructed position, then the screen
arrangement is reformatted so that the activity area is contained in the
viewable screen area (col. 2, ll. 10-20). Jones further describes that a user
may desire that a particular window remains visible throughout the
rearrangement process (col. 6, l. 60-col. 7, l. 5). Jones also teaches that
repositioning may include resizing so that the user activity and all or
selected windows are contained in a screen area (col. 5, ll. 46-49).
Accordingly, while we reviewed the above Jones’ sections as relied
upon by the Examiner, we do not agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16) that
Jones provides the teaching of displaying a sub-screen, down scaling the
main screen and displaying it in the remaining portion of the screen. At
best, we agree that Jones teaches downsizing but we do not find a teaching
of downsizing and displaying in the remaining portion of the screen.
Appeal 2010-012362
Application 11/603,611

5
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-6 and 19-22. The additional
references cited by the Examiner do not cure the above cited deficiency.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-18.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ludolph and
Jones teaches the limitation of:
a composite displaying unit that displays a predetermined
sub-screen on the screen and the main screen that is downscaled
so that the entire main screen is displayed on the remaining
portion of the screen when the first mouse operation determining
unit determines, during the full-screen display, that the moving
operation is the first movement

as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj