Ex Parte Furukawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 13, 2017

12984839 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2017)

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.
12/984,839 01/05/2011 Satoshi Furukawa 723-2973 3093
27562 7590 10/17/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
WONG, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2017 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 SATOSHI FURUKAWA and EIICHI SHIRAKAWA1
Appeal 2017-006770
Application 12/984,839
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA A. KRIVAK, JEREMY CURCURI, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellants seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—17, which represent all the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a process conducted when
touching and scrolling content browsed by a user. Spec. 11.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nintendo Co., Ltd.
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
August 2, 2016 (“Br.”), the Specification filed January 5, 2011 (“Spec.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed January 27, 2017 (“Ans.”) and the Final
Rejection mailed March 3, 2016 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2017-006770
Application 12/984,839
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage
medium having stored thereon a display control program
comprising instructions executable by a computer processor of
a display control apparatus to control a display, on a display
screen of a display device, of one or more selection objects
including at least one end-located selection object in accordance
with a signal obtained from an input device, the display control
program instructions causing the computer processor to perform
functions and operate as:
a selection objects movement controller producing and
controlling a scrolling movement of a plurality of selection
objects displayed on said display device within a predetermined
display area on the screen of the display device, wherein at least
one portion of said plurality of selection objects is displayed
within the predetermined display area and said scrolling
movement is controlled in accordance with a signal obtained
from the input device; and
a display controller that stops the scrolling movement of
the plurality of selection objects being displayed and
automatically generates a display of one or more second objects
whenever an end-located selection object reaches a
predetermined position within the predetermined display area
during scrolling, wherein the generated display of the one
or more second objects is semi-transparent, has an
appearance of a copy of one or more selection objects and
becomes moveable in accordance with the signal from the input
device in a manner so as to overlay at least a part of the
plurality of selection objects being displayed within the
predetermined display area, and wherein the display controller
changes a size or transparency of the one or more second
objects in accordance with an amount of movement of the one
or more second objects.
2
Appeal 2017-006770
Application 12/984,839
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 2009/0070711 Al, published Mar. 12,
2009), Stem (US 2008/0155439 Al, published June 26, 2008), Jarosz et al.
(US 20100153888A1, published June 17, 2010), and Robertson et al. (US
2004/0165010 Al published Aug. 26, 2004) (or alternatively and Mandryk
etal. (US 2011/0202834 Al, published Aug. 18,2011)). Final Act. 4-\4.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 1 is in error. App. Br. 15—21;
Reply Br. 2—6. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Instead, we
find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 12—18. As
such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided in the
Final Rejection and Answer. Id.', Final Act. 3—12. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
Appellants argue that the claims require automatically displaying one
or more second objects “upon stopping” the scrolling movement of
displayed selection objects. App. Br. 15. This argument is not
commensurate in scope with claim 1, however, which does not recite “upon
stopping.” Rather, as the Examiner finds, the claims only require stopping
the scrolling movement of objects and generating a display of one or more
second objects overlaying at least a part of selection objects when an end
located object reaches a position. Ans. 12. The Examiner finds Kwak
3
Appeal 2017-006770
Application 12/984,839
teaches the disputed limitation because it teaches a color object over laying a
menu item as shown, for example, in Kwak’s Figure 8. Id. at 13. Moreover,
the Examiner finds that Kwak also teaches a visual pattern displayed as
feedback or a motion graphic displayed when the item reaches the end
position. Id. (citing Kwak|| 147—148, 161—163, Figs. 9, 12). We agree
with the Examiner’s findings. Although Appellants argue that Kwak’s item
merely “changes color” (Reply Br. 2—3), Appellants provide insufficient
evidence that their Specification or claims limit the term “second object” in
a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed
by Kwak’s teachings of a second color object overlaying a menu item
(Kwak, Fig. 8), or of a visual pattern displayed (Kwak, Figs. 9, 12).
Appellants also argue that Stem’s single-pixel outlines are not the
claimed “second objects” because the single-pixel outlines allegedly are not
a copy that has the appearance of the object. App. Br. 18. However, we are
not persuaded by this argument, because Appellants do not explain
persuasively why the single pixel outlines do not teach the second objects.
The Examiner relies upon Stem to show the claimed “generated display of
the one or more second objects is semi-transparent” because in Stem’s
Figures 10a—10b the user can see through displayed objects. Ans. 15. We
agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding Stem. Moreover, the
Examiner also relies upon Jarosz, and not Stem alone, as teaching the
second objects having the appearance of a copy. Final Act. 6; Ans. 15
(“[wjith respect to a copy, it is noted that Jarosz is relied upon in the
rejections”). In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical
reasoning to the contrary, the Examiner’s response is reasonable and we find
no reversible error.
4
Appeal 2017-006770
Application 12/984,839
Appellants also argue that Jarosz only discloses a limited use of a
“ghosted image” and does not disclose scrolling. See App. Br. 19. The
Examiner relies on Kwak, and not Jarosz, to teach scrolling, and Jarosz is
relied on to show “one or more second objects displayed has an appearance
of a copy and becomes moveable in accordance with the signal from the
input device,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 16 (citing Jarosz || 49-50, Fig.
7b). We agree with the Examiner’s findings. In the absence of sufficient
evidence or line of technical reasoning to the contrary, the Examiner’s
response is reasonable and we find no reversible error.
Additionally, Appellants argue Stem, Jarosz, and Robertson (or
Mandryk) should not be combined with Kwak because the references do not
“address problems associated with scrollable items and menus or lists.”
App. Br. 20, Reply Br. 5—6. We are not persuaded by the general
contentions that Stem, Jarosz, and Robertson (or Mandryk) should not be
combined with Kwak (App. Br. 20, Reply Br. 5—6); moreover,
[T]he problem motivating the patentee may be only one of
many addressed by the patent’s subject matter. The question is
not whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but
whether the combination was obvious to a person with ordinary
skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem
known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Therefore, we are
unpersuaded one skilled in the art would not have recognized the
combination of Kwak, Stem, Jarosz, and Robertson (or Mandryk) teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. For the
same reasons, we sustain the rejections of claims 2—17, which were argued
5
Appeal 2017-006770
Application 12/984,839
together with claim 1. See App. Br. 21.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—17 is affirmed.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6