Ex Parte Beppu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 5, 2018

12492683 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/492,683 06/26/2009
27562 7590 11/07/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yusuke Beppu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SJP-723-2573 7759
EXAMINER
ENGLAND, SARA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUSUKE BEPPU and KIYOSHI MIZUKI
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 15, 16, 20, 25, and 26. Appellants have
withdrawn claims 17-19 from consideration. The Examiner has objected to
claims 12 and 14 as depending from a rejected base claim but has noted their
allowability if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nintendo Co., Ltd.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns "ensuring that
evaluation of a content is made after watching" the content. Spec. 1 :20-25. 2
The Specification explains that: (1) "[ w ]hen distribution of a content from a
distribution server is started, a CPU carries out streaming-play of the
received content"; (2) "[ w ]hen reproduction of the content ends, the CPU
determines whether a vote history" associated with the received content
"is stored in a flash memory"; (3) "[ w ]hen the vote history ... is not stored
in the flash memory, the CPU causes a monitor to display a user evaluation
input screen so as to accept evaluation of the content"; and ( 4) " [a] process
does not proceed to next processing until evaluation is input." Id. Abstract;
see id. at 7: 16-21. The Specification reports that forcing a user to make an
evaluation produces an "accurate evaluation" of the content. Id. at 1:20-23.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A non-transitory storage medium comprising a program,
said program causing a computer representing an information
processing device to:
reproduce a content,
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed June 26, 2009; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action,
mailed March 31, 2017; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed August 24,
2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed November 14, 2017; and
"Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed November 30, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
output an evaluation input screen, when a first
reproduction of said content ends, in which transition to next
processing is stopped until input of evaluation of said content is
accepted through a user's operation, and
output a virtual character enabling user evaluation of the
reproduced content by navigating the virtual character to a
position on the input evaluation screen corresponding to an
evaluation of the content,
wherein one or more virtual characters are further output
and each virtual character being respectively associated with
one or more different users' evaluation of the content.
App. Br. 27 (Claims App'x).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence ofunpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a), the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Matheny et al. US 2004/0205810 Al Oct. 14, 2004
("Matheny")
Bono et al. US 2008/0028314 Al Jan.31,2008
("Bono")
Carden et al. US 2009/0171771 Al July 2, 2009
("Carden") (filed Oct. 21, 2008)
The Re} ections on Appeal
Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ,r 1 as failing
to comply with the enablement requirement. 3 Final Act. 2-3.
3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA"), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 112, e.g., to rename§ 112's
subsections. Because Application 12/492,683 was filed before the AIA's
effective date for applications, this decision refers to the pre-AIA version of
§ 112.
3
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ,r 2 as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter regarded as the invention. Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 1-10, 15, 16, 20, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bono, Matheny, and Carden. Final Act. 5-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellants' arguments
that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we concur with
the Examiner's conclusions concerning unpatentability under§ 103(a). But
we disagree with the Examiner's determinations under§ 112. We adopt the
Examiner's findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action and Answer
that relate to the§ 103(a) rejection. We add the following to address and
emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The§ 112 f 1 Rejection of Claims 11 and 13
INTRODUCTION
"To be enabling, the specification of a patent [application] must teach
those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed
invention without 'undue experimentation."' Genentech, Inc. v. Novo
Nordisk, A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Wright,
999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Determining the need for "undue
experimentation" is not "a single, simple factual determination, but rather is
a conclusion reached by weighing many" factors. In re Wands, 858 F.2d
731,737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Those factors (the Wands factors) include:
(1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of
direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of
working examples, ( 4) the nature of the invention, ( 5) the state
4
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
of the prior art, ( 6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the
predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth
of the claims.
Id. (citing In re Forman, 230 USPQ 546,547 (BPAI 1986)).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 11 AND 13
Dependent claims 11 and 13 read as follows ( with formatting added
for clarity):
11. The non-transitory storage medium according to claim 1,
wherein said program further causes said computer to
determine whether input of evaluation of said content in said
evaluation input screen has already been made after
reproduction of said content ends,
when input of evaluation of said content in said
evaluation input screen has already been made, a subsequent
evaluation input screen is not output, and
when input of evaluation of said content in said
evaluation input screen has not been made, said subsequent
evaluation input screen is output.
13. The non-transitory storage medium according to
claim 11,
wherein the evaluation input screen capable of accepting
inputs of evaluation of said content by n (n: 2 or greater)
persons is output,
whether inputs of evaluation of said content in said
evaluation input screen by m (n 2 m) or more persons were
made is determined,
when reproduction of said content ends and when it is
determined that inputs of evaluation of said content in said
evaluation input screen by m (n 2 m) or more persons were
made, a subsequent evaluation screen is not output, and
5
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
when reproduction of said content ends and when it is
determined that inputs of evaluation of said content in said
evaluation input screen by m (n 2 m) or more persons have not
yet been made, said subsequent evaluation screen is output.
App. Br. 30-32 (Claims App'x).
THE EXAMINER'S ANALYSIS
The Examiner notes that claim 11 recites "when input of evaluation of
said content in said evaluation input screen has already been made, a
subsequent evaluation input screen is not output." Final Act. 2; Ans. 7. The
Examiner determines that "[i]t is not clear" whether claim 11 's "subsequent
evaluation input screen" is "the same screen" as claim 1 's "evaluation input
screen." Final Act. 2; Ans. 7. The Examiner reasons that if claims 1 and 11
recite the same screen "they both can not occur in the same claim family, or
if it is another screen it is not adequately supported by the specification and
is not enabled by the disclosure." Final Act. 2; Ans. 7.
For claim 13, the Examiner reasons that " [ t ]he limitation 'said
evaluation input screen is not output' after it was already output in Claim 11
not written as if statements that would be critical or essential to the practice
of the invention, but not included in the claim( s) is not enabled by the
disclosure." Final Act. 3; see Ans. 7. The Examiner also reasons that
claim 13 "includes a concept or idea attempted by the limitation 'accepting
inputs of evauation [sic] by ... 2 or greater persons"' that "is not enabled in
a way that it can be carried out" because "[m]ultiple devices with multiple
evaluation input screens would have been needed." Final Act. 3; see
Ans. 7-8.
6
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
DISCUSSION
In the Appeal Brief, i.e., the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
section and the Arguments section, Appellants cite various portions of the
Specification as enabling support for claims 11 and 13. See, e.g., App.
Br. 13-17. Based on an analysis of the Specification, we agree with
Appellants that it sufficiently describes how to make and use the inventions
recited in claims 11 and 13 without undue experimentation. See, e.g., Spec.
7:16-8:26, 10:7-16, 15:20-21, 64:26-66:5, 66:26-67:10, 68:10-69:27,
Figs. 27, 29.
Claims 11 and 13 encompass a situation described in the Specification
where (1) a user evaluates content using an "evaluation input screen," (2) the
user later attempts to reevaluate the same content, and (3) a "subsequent
evaluation input screen" may or may not be provided to the user depending
on whether the reevaluation attempt occurs before "a prescribed period of
time has elapsed" since the initial evaluation, e.g., one month. See, e.g.,
Spec. 7: 16-8:26, 66:2-5, 69: 19-27, Fig. 29. For example, the Specification
explains that when "the date of vote [evaluation] in the stored vote history is
a date in a previous month or before, it is determined that a new input of
evaluation is acceptable and the user evaluation input screen is displayed."
Id. at 8:22-24.
Claims 11 and 13 also encompass a situation described in the
Specification where ( 1) a user evaluates content using an "evaluation input
screen," (2) the user selects the "watch again" button after evaluating the
content, and (3) a "subsequent evaluation input screen" is not output to the
user. See, e.g., Spec. 10:7-16, 67:8-10, 68:22-69:1, Fig. 29.
7
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
Further, the Specification describes an embodiment where different
users operate the same input device to evaluate the same content using their
own respective characters appearing on the same display. See, e.g., Spec.
15:20-21, 64:26-66:1, Fig. 27. According to the Specification, "[e]ach user
operates [a] controller" to "move the user character representing the user
himself/herself to a position [ on an evaluation input screen] indicating
evaluation that the user made after watching the content." Id. at 65:3-5.
The Examiner does not address the Specification's enabling support
for claims 11 and 13 or the Wands factors, e.g., "the amount of direction or
guidance presented" and "the presence or absence of working examples."
See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 7-8. Thus, we determine that the Examiner has not
adequately explained why those skilled in the art would have to engage in
undue experimentation to practice the claimed invention. Hence, we do not
sustain the § 112 ,r 1 rejection of claims 11 and 13.
The§ 112 f 2 Rejection of Claims 11 and 13
INTRODUCTION
Section 112's second paragraph requires that the specification
"conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention."
35 U.S.C. § 112 ,r 2.
Due to the need for "particular[ity]" and "distinct[ness]," claim
language that "is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise
unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention" warrants a
rejection under§ 112 ,r 2. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 1313
(Fed. Cir. 2014); see Ex parte McAward, No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL
3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential); see also In re
8
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (explaining that "[t]he
legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably apprises those
of skill in the art of its scope"); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235
(CCP A 1971) (requiring "a reasonable degree of precision and particularity"
in claims).
THE EXAMINER'S ANALYSIS
According to the Examiner, claim 11 "states 'when reproduction of
said content ends, said evaluation input screen is output in accordance with a
result of determining whether the input of the evaluation of said content in
said evaluation input screen has already been made after reproduction of said
content ends'." Final Act. 4. Based on the quoted language, the Examiner
determines that "[i]t is not clear how you can wait to display the input screen
until it is determined." Id. According to the Examiner, claim 13 "states
'said evaluation input screen is not output' cannot be determined because the
evaluation input screen has already been output as disclosed in Claims 1 and
11 from which Claim 13 depends." Id. The Examiner also determines that
"the limitation 'when reproduction again of said content in said reproduction
step ends' does not make sense because the reproduction step previously
recited only occurs once." Id.; Ans. 7.
DISCUSSION
The language that the Examiner includes inside quotation marks does
not appear in claim 11 or claim 13. In addition, Appellants explain that
(1) "claim 1 recites an 'evaluation input screen' while claim 11 recites a
'subsequent evaluation input screen"'; (2) "[s]uch features are ... supported,
at least, on pages 68 and 69 of Appellants' specification"; and (3) "one of
ordinary skill when reading the claims in light of the specification, would
9
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
readily understand that an 'evaluation input screen,' as recited in claim 1,
could be logically followed by a 'subsequent evaluation input screen,' as
recited in claim 11." Reply Br. 2. Appellants provide a similar explanation
for claim 13. Id. at 2-3.
The preceding section concerning the § 112 ,r 1 rejection discusses
Specification support for claims 11 and 13, including support on pages 68
and 69. We agree with Appellants that claims 11 and 13 viewed in light of
the Specification satisfy § 112' s definiteness requirement. Hence, we do not
sustain the § 112 ,r 2 rejection of claims 11 and 13.
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-10, 15, 16, 20, 25, and 26
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 16, 20, AND 26
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 16, 20, and 26 because the references fail to teach or suggest the
following limitations in claim 1 and similar limitations in the other
independent claims: "output a virtual character enabling user evaluation of
the reproduced content by navigating the virtual character to a position on
the input evaluation screen corresponding to an evaluation of the content"
and "one or more virtual characters are further output and each virtual
character being respectively associated with one or more different users'
evaluation of the content." App. Br. 18; see Reply Br. 4--8. Specifically,
Appellants assert that "[n]either Bono nor Carden evaluate[s] content by
navigating a virtual character to a position on a screen," and neither
reference "output[ s] multiple virtual characters corresponding to different
user evaluation of the content." App. Br. 18; see Reply Br. 5-7. In addition,
Appellants contend that "Bono does not at all describe evaluating content by
navigating a virtual character to a position on the screen indicative of the
10
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
evaluation, let alone output multiple virtual characters corresponding to
different user's evaluation of content." App. Br. 19. Appellants also
contend that "Carden is directed to evaluating the person and not content
that is reproduced (and then evaluated)." Id. at 20. Appellants add that
"Carden shows an interface where a user can evaluate multiple people and
thus the icons would not be reflective of different users (i.e., more than one
user) evaluation of content." Reply Br. 6.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they attack the references individually, whereas the Examiner relies on the
combined disclosures in the references to reject the independent claims. See
Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 3-5. Where a rejection rests on the combined
disclosures in the references, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness
by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the combined disclosures in Bono and
Carden teach or suggest the disputed limitations in the independent claims.
See Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 3-5.
Specifically, Bono discloses an interface for displaying video content
and permitting several reviewers to comment on the video content. Bono
,r,r 5---6, 10-13, 18-20, 28-31, 66-76, Figs. 7-10; see Final Act. 5; Ans. 3.
For example, Bono explains that an "embodiment of the invention relates to
a method and system for creation and editing of a video," and reviewers can
"submit comments relating to the displayed portion of the video," e.g., "in
text form." Bono ,r,r 11, 73, Figs. 7-8; see Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. The
interface permits "reviewers of a video" to (1) "view comments submitted
by other reviewers" and (2) "approve comments submitted by other
reviewers." Bono ,r,r 19-20, Fig. 9; see Final Act. 5; Ans. 3.
11
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
Carden discloses a rating system with an interface that permits
"positioning an icon representing an individual" within "a continuum of one
or more dimensions to record the value of one or more attributes of the
individual." Carden ,r,r 1, 13, 42-70, Abstract, Figs. 1-7; see Final Act. 6;
Ans. 3--4. Although Carden discusses "two-dimensional continuums,"
Carden instructs that "a single-dimensional slider is preferred due to its
visual clarity and ease of use." Carden ,r 42; see id. ,r 18. "The scale used
for the slider is segmented" based on the attribute under consideration, e.g.,
into two or more segments. Id. ,r 43. An evaluator moves a "people icon"
representing the evaluated individual along the slider to denote a rating for
the attribute under consideration. Id. ,r,r 45--46. Carden's "people icon"
corresponds to the claimed "virtual character." See Final Act. 6; Ans. 3--4.
As an evaluator moves a "people icon" from segment to segment along the
slider, a definition for the current segment appears informing the evaluator
what placement in the current segment would mean for the evaluated
individual. Carden ,r,r 45, 59.
Carden describes an embodiment for one evaluator to rate different
individuals "on the same slider." Carden ,r,r 36, 53, Fig. 5; see App.
Br. 19-20. Carden also describes an embodiment for different evaluators to
rate one individual "on a single slider" where different "people icons"
represent different evaluators, e.g., "peers, customers, staff or other
managers of the individual." Carden ,r,r 38, 65-66, Fig. 7; see App. Br. 22-
23. Carden's Figure 7 shows the embodiment that employs a single slider
for different evaluators to rate one individual and is reproduced below.
12
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
Client s;it!:;;faction
l
71 70
Highest
I
!
I
i
73
72
Figure 7 illustrates a slider including icon 70 representing a rating by a
manager along with similar icons representing ratings by other evaluators,
such as icons 71 and 73. Carden ,r,r 65---66; see App. Br. 22-23.
"[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, the Specification describes user
evaluation of content by, among other things, typing numeric values or text
"for making evaluation." Spec. 66:11-13. Thus, the Examiner correctly
"notes that the claim limitation 'evaluation of content' is any feedback the
user provides corresponding to content," and "[t]his is clearly illustrated in
Bono' s comments section." Ans. 5.
Thus, Bono discloses evaluating reproduced content, and Carden
discloses evaluating by navigating a virtual character to a position in an
input evaluation screen. Bono ,r,r 5-6, 10-13, 18-20, 28-31, 66-76,
Figs. 7-10; Carden ,r,r 1, 13, 42-70, Abstract, Figs. 1-7; see Final Act. 5-7;
Ans. 3-5. Both Bono and Carden permit multiple evaluators to provide
evaluations, and Carden discloses multiple virtual characters corresponding
to multiple evaluators. Bono ,r,r 11, 18-20, 66, 72-7 4, 77, Fig. 11; Carden
,r,r 38, 65---66, Fig. 7; see Final Act. 5-7; App. Br. 23-24; Ans. 3-5. Hence,
13
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
the combined disclosures in Bono and Carden teach or suggest the disputed
limitations in the independent claims. See Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 3-5.
Appellants assert that "neither Bono nor Carden taken alone, or
together, output virtual characters that can be navigated in a virtual three-
dimensional space to evaluate content." App. Br. 21. As the Examiner
correctly notes, however, the independent claims do not require navigation
"in a virtual three-dimensional space to evaluate content." Ans. 6. Thus,
Appellants' assertion does not distinguish the claims from the references.
Appellants contend that "one of ordinary skill would not have been
motivated to modify Bono with Carden as doing so would render Bono
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." App. Br. 20-21; see Reply Br. 6-8.
Appellants urge that "by using the 'slider characters' to evaluate content,
Bono would not be able to provide the detailed comments as currently
available via input portion (button 26)." App. Br. 20. Appellants assert that
"[s]imply replacing the comment box [in Bono] with the Carden 'slider'
would actually limit the ability to provide any type of evaluation and/or
comment." Reply Br. 7.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
"[A] determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple
references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements."
In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures." In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965,968 (CCPA 1973).
Here, the Examiner correctly finds that Carden's slider "allow[s] for
ease of use" when users "rate reproduced content onscreen before further
processing to [the] next screen." Final Act. 7 (citing Carden ,r 52); see
14
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
Carden ,r,r 42, 52, 58. The Examiner explains that Carden's slider "is an
alternate input method" for Bono's interface. Ans. 5. For instance, Bono
describes a reviewer expressing agreement or disagreement with content
displayed on an input evaluation screen. Bono ,r,r 70, 72, Figs. 7, 9-10.
Carden describes different levels of agreement or disagreement, i.e.,
"completely untrue," "somewhat true," "largely true," and "completely
true." Carden Fig. 4. Hence, Carden enhances Bono's interface with a
"simple," "quick," and "intuitive" additional mechanism for inputting
evaluation information. Id. ,r 58; see Final Act. 7; Ans. 5.
Because Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 16, 20, and 26.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2-5, 7, 8, 10, AND 15
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, and 15 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 1. App. Br. 27-33 (Claims App'x). Appellants do not argue
patentability separately for these dependent claims. See App. Br. 18-25;
Reply Br. 4--11. Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we
sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons
as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6
Claim 6 depends indirectly from claim 1 and specifies that "when a
position where said virtual character is moved, in accordance with a user's
operation, is within any area among said plurality of evaluation item areas, it
is determined that input of evaluation of said content was made." App.
Br. 28-29 (Claims App'x). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 6 because Carden's system evaluates "individuals and not
content," and "nothing in Carden indicates that the system considers the
15
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
evaluation as being made when an icon is moved to a particular ratings
area." App. Br. 23; see Reply Br. 9-10.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Carden
discloses that after an evaluator moves a "people icon" to a desired location
along the slider, a help "bubble" appears above the "people icon" and shows
the "rating or definition attributable to that employee if they are left in that
position." Carden ,r 46, Fig. 3; see id. ,r 59. To cause the help "bubble" to
appear above the "people icon" after movement stops, Carden "determine[ s]
that input of evaluation ... was made" according to claim 6. See id.
,r,r 59---60.
Further, the Specification explains that button selecting may
correspond to the claimed "determin[ing] that input of evaluation ... was
made." Spec. 66:9-11, 66:20-22. Consistent with that explanation, the
Examiner finds that Bono "teaches comment submission via button input."
Ans. 6; see Bono ,r,r 70-74, 77-79, Figs. 7-8, 11. Hence, the combined
disclosures in Bono and Carden teach or suggest the disputed limitation in
claim 6. See Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 6.
Because Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the § 103 (a) rejection of claim 6.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9
Claim 9 depends indirectly from claim 1 and specifies that "when it is
determined that said next processing is selected, evaluation data as to
evaluation of said content in said evaluation input screen is transmitted to
said server." App. Br. 29-30 (Claims App'x). Appellants argue that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because "Bono only describes
transmitting review data between a terminal and server and does not provide
16
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
any indication of transmitting the review data when a user selects next
processing." App. Br. 25; see Reply Br. 10-11.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner correctly finds that Bono teaches that "input is not completed until
the user selects [the] Submit/end comment button" on the interface, and
"[ o ]nly then are comments sen[t] to" other reviewers for display "in the
Slide comments" section of the interface. Ans. 6-7; see Bono ,r,r 11-12,
70-74, 77-79, Figs. 7-8, 11. Specifically, Bono explains that the
Submit/end comment button on the interface "is used to indicate that the
comment is complete, and is ready to be sent to the host computer." Bono
,r 70. Thus, Bono teaches or suggests that selecting the Submit/end
comment button causes the reviewer's computer to transmit the reviewer's
comment to the host computer. Id. ,r,r 11, 70, 77-79, Fig. 11. Bono also
teaches or suggests that after selecting the Submit/end comment button, the
reviewer may comment on another part of the video. Id. ,r,r 66-74,
Figs. 7-8. Thus, selecting the Submit/end comment button corresponds to
selecting "next processing" according to claim 9. See Final Act. 1 O;
Ans. 6-7; Bono ,r,r 11-12, 70-74, 77-79, Figs. 7-8, 11.
Because Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 9.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 25
Claim 25 depends directly from claim 1 and specifies that "a plurality
of input evaluation areas are provided where each area corresponds to an
evaluation item, and each virtual character can be navigated to a respective
area corresponding to the evaluation item." App. Br. 34 (Claims App'x).
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 25 because
17
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
"Carden does not provide a plurality of input evaluation areas, let alone
allowing for virtual characters to be navigated to a respective input
evaluation area in order to evaluate content." App. Br. 22. Appellants
concede that Carden's slider "shows a range in which the icon can be moved
in order to show a degree of performance," e.g., "low" or "high." Reply
Br. 9. But Appellants contend that "[t]hese areas of the slider do not
reasonably correspond to a plurality of input evaluation areas where each
area corresponds to an evaluation item." Id. at 9-10.
Appellants' assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error. In patent
claims, the term "plurality" ordinarily means "more than one." See Bilstad
v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1122-23 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants do
not dispute this ordinary meaning. See App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 8-10.
Carden discloses "more than one" input evaluation area corresponding
to "more than one" evaluation item. Carden ,r,r 43, 46-47, 53, 56, 62---66,
Figs. 1, 5-7; see Final Act. 11; App. Br. 19-20, 22-23; Ans. 6. As
explained above, the scale for Carden' s slider "is segmented" based on the
attribute under consideration. Carden ,r,r 43, 45. As an evaluator moves a
"people icon" from segment to segment along the slider, a definition for the
current segment appears informing the evaluator what placement in the
current segment would mean for the evaluated individual. Id. ,r,r 45, 59.
Each segment along the slider corresponds to the claimed "input evaluation
area," and each definition corresponds to the claimed "evaluation item."
Thus, Carden teaches or suggests the disputed limitations in claim 25. See
Final Act. 11; Ans. 6.
Because Appellants' assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error,
we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 25.
18
Appeal2018-001517
Application 12/492,683
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 ,T 1.
We reverse the rejection of claims 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 ,T 2.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-10, 15, 16, 20, 25, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
19