Ex Parte Maehiro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2013

11420334 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KAZUTOYO MAEHIRO, TADASHI TSUSHIMA,
KOJI AOYAMA, and
MITSUO YOSHIOKA
____________

Appeal 2011-001692
Application 11/420,334
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001692
Application 11/420,334

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 18-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the invention as follows:
In a main area of a display device, buttons and a map
display area where a map is scrolled are provided. A cursor can
be moved to an arbitrary position of the main area according to
directional input received from an input device. When a
decision input is performed with the input device when the
cursor points to each button, processing assigned to the button
to which the cursor points is performed. When a user inputs a
direction and a special input button is not selected, the cursor is
moved throughout the main area. When the user inputs a
direction while the special input button is selected, the cursor is
moved only within the map display area and the map is scrolled
as required.
Spec., Abstract.

The invention is exemplified by the embodiments of Appellants’
Figure 2 and 8. Id. at p. 3, ll. 27-28; p. 6, ll. 15-18. In a bump scrolling
mode of both embodiments, joystick movement of the cursor to an interior
edge of a scrollable window causes bump scrolling (i.e., the cursor stops at
the edge and the window scrolls in the edge’s direction). Id. at p. 10, ll. 4-8.
In the Figure 2 embodiment, the cursor is moved between windows by
toggling from the bump-scrolling mode to a free movement mode and then
freely moving the cursor via the joystick. Spec., p. 9, l. 27 – p. 11, l. 6. In
the Figure 8 embodiment, the cursor is moved between windows by merely
keypad entering a numeric indicator of the desired window (e.g., see the
Appeal 2011-001692
Application 11/420,334

3
numeric indicators 801(0), 811(1), 821(2) of Figure 8’s three windows 800,
810, 820).1 Id. at p. 23, l. 19 – p. 24, l. 15.
Claims 18 and 25 are independent. Claims 19-24 depend from claim
18. Appellants’ arguments address in-common subject matter of claims 18
and 25 (App. Br., p. 30), present claims 19-24 as standing or falling with
claim 18 (id. at p. 20),2 and present claim 25 as additionally reciting a
computer-readable storage medium that further distinguishes the invention
over the applied prior art (id. at pp. 29-30). Claim 18 is therefore illustrative
and reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
18. A scroll display control apparatus that controls a
scroll display of information in a scroll area, included in a
plurality of cursor movement areas, in which the information is
scrolled according to an input from an input device, the
plurality of cursor movement areas being set within a display
area on a display device, the scroll display control apparatus
comprising:
a sequential movement unit that sequentially moves a
cursor to indicate one of the plurality of cursor movement areas
according to a movement instruction input from the input
device;

1 We note that, in another appeal addressing a cursor controller, this panel
reviewed a prior art reference that likewise employs a numeric selection of a
numbered display element (but not a window) to move a cursor to that
element. U.S. Patent No. 6,587,131 to Nakai, col. 7, ll. 25-34. Because the
Board is a review body, not a place of initial examination, we leave
Appellants and the Examiner to weigh that reference’s relevance to the
current prosecution.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 11, 2010
(“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 10, 2010 (“Ans.”), and the
Reply Brief filed August 10, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-001692
Application 11/420,334

4
a scroll instruction determining unit that determines
whether a scroll instruction for scrolling the information in the
scroll area has been input from the input device when the cursor
has been moved to indicate the scroll area by the sequential
movement unit;
a scroll cancel instruction determining unit that
determines whether a scroll cancel instruction, that cancels the
scroll instruction, has been input from the input device;
an inner area scroll determining unit that determines
whether an instruction to the information in the scroll area has
been input and whether the scroll cancel instruction has
determined that the scroll cancel instruction has been input;
an inner area instruction determining unit that
determines whether an inner area instruction, that further
moves the cursor to the scroll area, has been input when the
inner area scroll determining unit determines that the scrolling
of the information in the scroll area is instructed;
an inner area cancel instruction determining unit that
determines whether an inner area cancel instruction, that
cancels the inner area instruction, has been input from the
input device;
an inner area movement unit that moves the cursor to the
scroll area, from when it is determined that the inner area
instruction has been input, until when it is determined that the
inner area cancel instruction has been input;
an inner area sequential movement unit that sequentially
moves the cursor to indicate a unit of information, from among
the information in the scroll area, according to the movement
instruction input from the input device when the inner area
movement unit has moved the cursor to the scroll area; and
a scroll display control unit that scrolls the information in
the scroll area,
Appeal 2011-001692
Application 11/420,334

5
wherein the sequential movement unit sequentially
moves the cursor to indicate one of the plurality of cursor
movement areas, according to the movement instruction input
from the input device, when the inner area scroll determining
unit has not received the instruction to scroll the information in
the scroll area,
wherein the scroll display control unit scrolls the
information in the scroll area when the cursor is indicating the
scroll area according to the movement instruction input from
the input device, when the inner area scroll determining unit
receives the instruction to scroll the information in the scroll
area and the inner area movement unit does not move the cursor
to the scroll area, and
wherein the scroll display control unit scrolls the
information so that information to which the cursor moves is
displayed in the scroll area when the inner area sequential
movement unit moves the cursor to the information that is not
currently displayed in the scroll area, when the inner area
scroll determining unit receives the instruction to scroll the
information in the scroll area and the inner area movement unit
has moved the cursor to the scroll area.3
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Soohoo US 6,211,879 B1 April 3, 2001

3 Claim 18 is directed to a special purpose computer and recites all of the
claim features via means-plus-function limitations. Appellants have not
presented the corresponding structure of the at-issue limitations for
comparison against the applied prior art. Even in special purpose computer
claims, such as here, means-plus-function “language covers only the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.” Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Appeal 2011-001692
Application 11/420,334

6
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Soohoo. Ans., pp. 4-7.
SOOHOO
Soohoo teaches a method of selecting between windows configured
for bump scrolling. Soohoo, Abstract. Similar to Appellants’ Figure 2
embodiment, the cursor of Soohoo’s Figure 2 embodiment is moved
between windows by toggling from a bump-scrolling mode to a free-
movement mode and then freely moving the cursor via the joystick. Id. at
col. 3, l. 35 – col. 4, l. 7.
ANALYSIS
Appellants and Examiner principally dispute whether Soohoo teaches
a single-button movement of the cursor to a desired window, such as
employed by Appellants’ Figure 8 embodiment (described supra, p. 2).
App. Br., p. 22; Ans., p. 8; Reply Br., pp. 4-5. Appellants assert this feature
is claimed as an “inner area instruction”, stating:
[The claimed] inner area instruction determining unit
determines, when the inner area scroll determining unit
determines that the scrolling of information in the scroll area is
instructed, whether an inner area instructed that moves the
cursor to the scroll area is input. … To the contrary, SOOHOO
merely discloses a method of navigating a display 101
including a first state in which a cursor 108 can move freely
between a plurality of windows 102, 103 on a display 101 and a
second state in which the cursor 108 is confined within one of
the windows 102, 103 on the display 101 and in which the
“bump” scrolling feature is enabled.
Appeal 2011-001692
Application 11/420,334

7
App. Br., p. 22 (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellants’ argument insofar that Soohoo’s toggling of
a cursor to the free-movement mode does not appear to alone move the
cursor from a current window to a desired window. See supra, pp. 5-6
(describing Soohoo). However, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate
with the scope of claim 18. A plain meaning of “instruction” is “a command
given to a computer to carry out a particular operation.” Random House
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 988 (2d ed. 2001). Nothing within this
meaning limits the instruction to being executed via a single user input, as
asserted by Appellants.
Moreover, Appellants’ Figure 2 embodiment allows window selection
by way of toggling to the free-movement mode and then freely moving the
cursor via the joystick. See supra, pp. 5-6. Thus, this type of window
selection would be a possible feature of the claimed invention unless clearly
disavowed by claim 18. Contrary to disavowing this feature, claim 18
requires “sequential” movement of the cursor to a cursor movement area,
which is also the scroll area (App. Br., p. 17). A plain meaning of
“sequential” is “characterized by regular sequence of parts” and “following;
subsequent; consequent.” Dictionary at 1747. Thus, sequential movement
encompasses bit-by-bit movement of a cursor from a window to the very
next nested window and so forth as in Appellants’ Figure 2 cursor control,
but not jumping of a cursor from one window to any other window as in
Appellants’ Figure 8 cursor control (e.g., not movement from window 800 to
window 820, thereby bypassing window 810).
Given the above considerations, we construe the “inner area
instruction” of claim 18 as encompassing a string of user inputs that result in
Appeal 2011-001692
Application 11/420,334

8
movement of the cursor to a scroll area. In turn, we find this feature is
taught by Soohoo’s toggling of a cursor to the free-movement mode and
subsequent joystick movement of the cursor to a desired window. See
supra, pp. 5-6. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.4
Appellants present several further arguments with respect to the inner
area instruction, specifically, and assert alleged automatic movements of the
cursor, generally. App. Br., pp. 24-29. Appellants have simply not
presented sufficient claim analysis or reasoning to establish that automatic
movement of the cursor is indeed required by the language of claim 18 (as
opposed to merely permitted). That is, Appellants have not meaningfully
explained how or why the claim language requires automatic movement of
the cursor in lieu of movement guided by a joystick. See In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming in part because appellant
“merely argued that the claims differed from [the prior art], and chose not to
proffer a serious explanation of this difference.”); In re Baxter Travenol
Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court
to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant[.]”).
For the reasons expressed above as to the meaning of “instruction”,
we do not construe the claims as requiring automatic movement of the
cursor. Thus, our reading of the contested limitations on Soohoo’s teachings
is as follows:

4 We note that, even assuming arguendo that claim 18 required the “inner
area instruction” to be executed via a single user input, a mere replacement
of multiple user inputs with a single user input would likely constitute an
obvious automation of Soohoo’s teachings. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91,
95 (CCPA 1958) (“[I]t is well settled that it is not ‘invention’ to broadly
provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which
has accomplished the same result.”).
Appeal 2011-001692
Application 11/420,334

9
 The inner area instruction determining unit determines if the
cursor is on a scroll area and the scroll lock is on. This feature
reads on Soohoo’s implicit tracking of whether conditions of
bump scrolling are met.
 The inner area cancel instruction determining unit determines if
the cursor is off of a scroll area. This feature also reads on
Soohoo’s implicit tracking of whether conditions of bump
scrolling are met.
 The inner area movement unit moves the cursor on and off the
scroll area. This feature reads on Soohoo’s movement of the
cursor on and off of windows.
 The third “wherein” limitation recites that scrolling slides un-
displayed information to the cursor if the scroll lock is on and
the cursor is on the scroll area. This limitation reads on
Soohoo’s implicit manner of bump scrolling (i.e., moving un-
displayed information toward the window edge overlaid by the
cursor) and implicit tracking of whether conditions of bump
scrolling are met.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ arguments for claim 18 are not
persuasive. Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of claim 18 and its
dependent claims 19-24 over Soohoo is sustained.
Appellants argue that independent claim 25 recites the same subject
matter as claim 18, but also recites a computer-readable storage medium that
alone distinguishes the invention over Soohoo. Id. at pp. 29-30. We find
that Soohoo implicitly uses a computer readable storage medium (e.g., ROM
and/or RAM) to store the code for cursor control. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is
proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom”).
Appeal 2011-001692
Application 11/420,334

10
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments for claim 25 are not persuasive.
The anticipation rejection of claim 25 over Soohoo is therefore sustained.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18-25 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tkl