Ex Parte Kamiyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

13130356 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/130,356 05/20/2011 Y oshiroh Kamiyama
52021 7590 08/01/2016
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
JP920080244US 1_8150-0089 6958
EXAMINER
TITCOMB, WILLIAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIROH KAMIY AMA and GOU NAKASHIMA
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 21-30 and 32-39. 1' 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (Final Act. 9).
2 Appellants include claims 41 and 42 in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief. However, these claims are not pending and thus, have not been
considered.
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to dragging an object
to a target destination based on user operated pointer position (Abstract).
Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
21. A display apparatus for moving a drag object on a screen in
accordance with an operation of a pointer, the display apparatus
compnsmg:
a detection unit configured to detect a target object on the
screen, the target object being a destination of the drag object;
and
a display control unit configured to display the drag object
in a position closer to the target object than a display position of
the pointer moved in accordance with an operation performed by
a user.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Light
Pauly
Baudisch
Kake
US 6,567 ,070 B 1
US 6,693,653 B 1
US 7,231,609 B2
US 2008/0229224 Al
REJECTIONS
May 20, 2003
Feb. 17,2004
June 12, 2007
Sept. 18, 2008
Claims 21, 27, 32, and 35-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Baudisch (Final Act. 9-14).
2
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
Claims 22 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baudisch and Light (id. at 15-16).3
Claims 23 and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baudisch and Kake (id. at 16-19).
Claims 24 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baudisch and Pauly (id. at 20-24).
Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baudisch, Light, and Pauly.4
3 We note the Examiner misstates the rejection of dependent claim 33.
Specifically, the Examiner states claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Baudisch; however, claim 33 depends, not
directly from claim 21, but from intervening claim 22, which is rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baudisch and Light.
Thus, claim 33 is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baudisch and Light. Given that Appellants were not put
on notice of this rejection, should prosecution be reopened with respect to
these claims, the Examiner should correct the rejection.
4 We note the Examiner also misstates the rejection of dependent claims 25
and 26. Specifically, we note the Examiner indicates claims 25 and 26 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baudisch and
Pauly; however, claims 25 and 26 depend from intervening claim 22, which
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baudisch
and Light. Thus, claims 25 and 26 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baudisch, Light, and Pauly. Given that
Appellants were not put on notice of this rejection, should prosecution be
reopened with respect to these claims, the Examiner should correct the
rejection.
3
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 21and32
Appellants argue their invention as recited in claims 21 and 32, is not
anticipated by Baudisch (App. Br. 13). The issue presented by the
arguments is:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Baudisch discloses "a
display control unit configured to display the drag object in a position closer
to the target object than a display position of the pointer moved in
accordance with an operation performed by a user," as recited in claim 21?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Baudisch does not disclose "a display control unit
configured to display the drag object in a position closer to the target object
than a display position of the pointer moved in accordance with an operation
performed by a user" (App. Br. 13). Specifically, Appellants argue
Baudisch does not disclose an offset between the drag object 402 and the
pointer (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants. The Examiner finds Baudisch
teaches the claimed display control unit recited in claim 21 (Ans. 20). The
Examiner finds "[ c ]laim 21 does not expressly recite any offset between the
alleged drag object and the point" (id. at 22 (misnumbered at 3)). We agree
with the Examiner that Baudisch teaches the display control unit and claim
does not require an offset between drag object and pointer (id. at 20, 22).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Baudisch discloses the invention as recited in claim 21 and claims 32 and
33, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 21,
4
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Baudisch. Because
Appellants do not provide separate argument addressing dependent claims
23, 24, and 28-30 we sustain the rejection of those claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for similar reasons.
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 23 and 28-30
Appellants argue their invention as recited in claims 23 and 28-30, is
not unpatentable over Baudisch and Kake for the reasons argued in
connection with independent claim 21 (App. Br. 19). As set forth above, the
Examiner has shown Baudisch discloses the claimed invention of
independent claim 21. However, Appellants do not proffer sufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, claims 23 and 28-30 stand with
independent claim 21.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 24
Appellants argue their invention as recited in claim 24, is not
unpatentable over Baudisch and Pauly for the reasons argued in connection
with independent claim 21 (App. Br. 19-20). However, Appellants do not
proffer sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the
Examiner's findings. The Examiner has shown Baudisch discloses the
claimed invention of independent claim 21. Thus, for the reasons set forth
above, claim 24 stands with its respective independent claim.
5
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 22
Appellants argue their invention as recited in claim 22, is not
unpatentable over Baudisch and Light (App. Br. 17). The issue presented by
the arguments is:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Baudisch and Light teaches or suggests "as a distance between the pointer
and the target object becomes shorter, the display control unit is configured
to make an offset amount larger, the offset amount by which the drag object
is offset from the pointer in a direction close to the target object," as recited
in claim 22?
ANALYSIS
According to Appellants, Light discloses selecting an object, but not
dragging an object or anything about the distance between the drag object
and the pointer (App. Br. 18). The Examiner finds Light discloses cursor
navigation to activate an increase in target region size as a pointer
approaches the expanding target region. However, as argued by Appellants,
Light's offset is between the pointer and target, not between the pointer and
drag object.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Baudisch and Light teaches or suggests the invention as
recited in claim 22. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of
claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Baudisch and Light.
6
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 25 and 26
With respect to claims 25 and 26, the Examiner has not shown the
combination of Baudisch and Light teaches or suggest the claimed invention
of dependent claim 22. Indeed, the Examiner has not shown Light cures the
deficiencies of Baudisch. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, because
claims 25 and 26 stand with claim 22 from which they depend, we are
constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 25 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baudisch, Light, and Pauly.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 33
Claim 33 depends from dependent claim 22. The Examiner has not
shown Baudisch discloses the claimed invention of dependent claim 22. Nor
has the Examiner shown Light cures the deficiencies of Baudisch. Thus, for
the reasons set forth above, because claim 33 stands with claim 22, we are
constrained to reverse the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baudisch and Light.
ISSUE 4
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 27 and 35-39
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Baudisch (App.
Br. 16-17). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 4(a): Has the Examiner erred in finding Baudisch discloses "the
display control unit is configured to display a direction object indicating a
direction from the pointer to the drag object," as recited in claim 27?
Issue 4(b): Has the Examiner erred in finding Baudisch discloses "a
display control unit configured to move the drag object by a movement
7
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
amount larger than a movement amount of the pointer and then displaying
the drag object," as recited in claim 35, and similarly recited in claim 37?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Baudisch does not disclose "the display control unit
is configured to display a direction object indicating a direction from the
pointer to the drag object" (App. Br. 16-17). Specifically, Appellants argue
Baudisch does not disclose that the direction is not indicated by a displayed
direction object because, contrary to the Examiner's findings, "vector 602 is
not described as indicating a direction from the pointer to the drag object"
(id.).
We agree with Appellants that Baudisch does not disclose the
invention as recited in dependent claim 27. In particular, Baudisch's vector
602 is not disclosed as being displayed by display screen 400 but, instead,
appears to depict a direction of motion of icon 402 as illustrated by Figure 6.
Thus, we find the Examiner fails to show Baudisch discloses a displayed
direction object indicating a direction from the pointer to the drag object.
Accordingly, we find Baudisch does not disclose the features as
recited in dependent claim 27. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the
rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Baudisch.
Appellants additionally argue Baudisch does not disclose "a display
control unit configured to move the drag object by a movement amount
larger than a movement amount of the pointer and then displaying the drag
object" as recited in claim 35, and similarly recited in claim 37 (App. Br.
14--16). Specifically, Appellants argue the cited portion of Baudisch "makes
8
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
no mention of the drag movement of the object being larger than a
movement amount of the pointer" (id. at 15).
We agree with Appellants that Baudisch does not disclose the
invention as recited in claim 35 and specifically, we find the Examiner fails
to show Baudisch discloses a display control unit configured to move the
drag object by a movement amount larger than a movement amount of the
pointer. See discussion with respect to claim 22 supra.
Accordingly, we find Baudisch does not disclose the features as
recited in independent claim 35, and claims 36-39, not separately argued.
Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 35-39 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Baudisch.
New Ground of Rejection: Claims 35 and 37
We do, however, in a new ground of rejection, conclude an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the displayed pointer
for moving displayed drag objects disclosed in Baudisch to move a drag
object by an amount larger than the movement amount of the pointer, as
disclosed in Schanel. 5 Thus, we enter a new ground of rejection of claims
35 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baudisch
and Schanel. Specifically, we find Baudisch teaches a displayed cursor 502,
equivalent of the claimed pointer, configured to move a display position of
the pointer on screen in accordance with user movement (Baudisch Figs. 5-
7, 8:56-60). We further find Baudisch teaches a display control unit
configured to move the drag object and then display the drag object (id. at
5 Schanel et al. US 5, 704,028 A December 30, 1997
9
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
Figs. 6-7, 8:56-60, 9:34-44). In an example dragging operation, Schanel
discloses movement of a displayed object by dragging the object a portion of
the total movement which would be required to relocate the drag object, and
then completing the movement by releasing the object, when in range, to
snap the object the remainder of the distance (Schanel Fig. 4; see 8:54---67,
9:26-41). Therefore, we determine it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the
displayed cursor dragging operation in Baudisch to automatically snap the
cursor into place when the object is moved within range of a target location,
to provide a convenient and easy-to-use interface that quickly and efficiently
creates aesthetically pleasing graphics. As clarified in KSR, the skilled
artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." See KSR Int'!
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). We determine that
combining the dragging operation with snapping of the cursor would not be
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represent[] an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418). Instead, we determine the addition of a snap feature to
automatically complete movements within a specific on screen distance
would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan (see Baudisch, Fig.
6; 8:56-60).
Thus, we enter a new ground of rejection for claims 35 and 37 using
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b ).
Although we have rejected independent claims 35 and 37 under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we have not reviewed the remaining claims, including
dependent claims 36, 38, and 39, discussed above, to the extent necessary to
10
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
determine whether these claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We leave it to the Examiner to determine the appropriateness of any further
rejections based thereon.
ISSUE 5
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 34
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Baudisch and
Pauly (App. Br. 21-22). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 4: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Baudisch and Pauly teaches or suggests
as a distance between the pointer and the detected at least one
target object becomes shorter, the display control unit is
configured to make larger an offset amount with respect to the
corresponding target object, and as an association degree
representing strength of an association between the drag object
and the detected at least one target object becomes higher, the
display control unit is configured to make the offset amount
larger with respect to the corresponding target object,
as recited in claim 34?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Baudisch and Pauly does not
disclose an "offset amount" or the "association degree representing strength
of an association between the drag object and the detected at least one target
object becomes higher" (App. Br. 21 ). Specifically, Appellants argue
Baudisch and Pauly does not disclose or mention "the claimed 'offset
amount'" (id.). Appellants further argue the cited portions of Baudisch and
Pauly are silent regarding the association degree, and Pauly is silent to the
11
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
claimed drag object, instead describing cursor movement without dragging
(id.).
We agree with Appellants that Baudisch does not disclose the
invention as recited in dependent claim 34. As set forth with respect to
claim 22, we are not persuaded Baudisch teaches or suggests the claimed
offset. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Baudisch and Pauly teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claim 34. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of
claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Baudisch and Pauly.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 21 and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Baudisch is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 27 and 35-39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Baudisch is REVERSED.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 22 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Baudisch and Light is REVERSED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baudisch and Kake is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baudisch and Pauly is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baudisch, Light, and Pauly is
REVERSED.
12
Appeal2015-002215
Application 13/130,356
The Examiner's rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baudisch and Pauly is REVERSED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 35-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Baudisch is REVERSED. However, in a new
ground of rejection, we reject claims 35 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
being obvious over Baudisch and Schanel.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2010). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in
which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. ...
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART;
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
13