Ex Parte Matsuoka

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

13437061 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/437,061 04/02/2012
27562 7590 07/01/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hirofumi MATSUOKA
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.
RYM-723-3413 3221
EXAMINER
WELCH, DAVID T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2615
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
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 HIROFUMI MATSUOKA
Appeal2014-004712
Application 13/437,061
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EV ANS, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 37-96; Claims 1-36 and 97 are
canceled. App. Br. 28--42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Nintendo Co., Ltd., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 4, 2013, "App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed February 28, 2014, "Reply Br.") the Examiner's Answer (mailed
January 15, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed May 2, 2013, "Final
Act."), and the Specification (filed April 2, 2012, "Spec.") for their
Appeal2014-004712
Application 13/437,061
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to methods and systems for displaying on a display
an object to be generated and moved according to an input from an input
device. See Abstract.
Claims 37, 49, 61, 73, 85, 89, and 91 are independent. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
Claim 85, which is reproduced below with some formatting added:
85. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
storing a program that displays on a display an object to be
generated and moved according to an input from an input
device, wherein the program, upon execution by a computer
system, provides operation comprising:
detecting a transition of a touch-off state to a touch-on
state on the input device at an initial touch input point without
yet displaying the object;
detecting continuous touch inputs on the input device
after detecting the touch-on state on the input device at the
initial touch input point;
determining when the detected continuous touch inputs
satisfy a condition;
initially displaying the object at a position of one of the
detected continuous touch inputs satisfying the condition;
detecting additional touch inputs on the input device after
initially displaying the object; and
respective details.
2
Appeal2014-004712
Application 13/437,061
controlling movement of the displayed object at least
from its initially displayed position based on the detected
additional touch inputs.
References and Rejections3
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Li, et al.
Kinawi, et al.
Astala, et al.
us 5,557' 731
US 6,545,669 Bl
US 6,590,568 B 1
Sep. 17, 1996
Apr. 8, 2003
July 8, 2003
1. Claims 85-92 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Astala and Li. Ans. 2--4.
2. Claims 37-84 and 93-96 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Astala, Li, and Kinawi. Ans. 4--11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 37-96 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
Appellants' Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3 We do not reach the merits of Claim 97 (Final Act. 12) in view of its
cancellation. App. Br. 42.
3
Appeal2014-004712
Application 13/437,061
We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 16-26.
CLAIMS 85-96
Detecting a transition ... without yet displaying the object.
Claim 85 recites, inter alia, "detecting a transition of a touch-off state
to a touch-on state on the input device at an initial touch input point without
yet displaying the object." Appellant contends that Astala and Li each relate
to manipulating an object that has previously been displayed on a display
screen and that neither reference teaches the initial display of an object
following detection of a transition of a touch-off state to a touch-on state.
App. Br. 16-17.
The Examiner finds that Astala does not teach a touch-pad, wherein
an initial touch input is detected prior to display of the object. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds Li teaches detecting a touch input prior to displaying an
object, and then generating the object to be displayed at the position of the
touch input. Id. (citing Li, col. 7, 11. 12-19, 43, and 44).
The Examiner's Answer finds Astala teaches detection of a
continuous touch input, but fails to teach generating the object at one of the
touch inputs. Ans. 14. However, the Examiner finds generating an object at
an initial touch input is disclosed by Li. Ans. 15.
Appellant's Reply reiterates the argument that each of Astala and Li
disclose a touch pad on which the relevant object has been displayed prior to
detection of a touch input. Reply Br. 2-3.
4
Appeal2014-004712
Application 13/437,061
Li discloses "the process begins in block 200 and thereafter, the parent
object is set equal to the object covered by the pointer, as depicted in Block
202." Li, col. 7, 11. 12-14. This disclosure does not teach generating an
object in response to the pointer. Rather the disclosure relates to designating
as "parent," an object that was previously displayed and covered by a
pointer.
With respect to the "detecting ... without yet displaying the object"
limitation, we agree Appellant is persuasive of error. We, therefore, reverse
the rejection of independent Claims 85, 89, and 91 which recite
commensurate limitations. We also reverse the rejection of their dependent
Claims 86-88, 90, and 92-96.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 37, 49, 61, 73 AND CLAIMS DEPENDENT THEREON
Appellant contends independent Claim 37 recites "controlling a
movement of the object based on continuous detection results obtained in
said detecting after said object generation coordinates are determined;
wherein the movement of the object continues even after coordinates are no
longer detected in said detecting." App. Br. 18-19. Appellant argues the
accused limitation permits an object to be "thrown," i.e., the "thrown" object
can continuously move even after touch-off is detected. App. Br. 19 (citing
Spec., Fig. 6). According to Appellant, the Examiner finds this limitation is
not taught by the Astala-Li combination, but is taught by Kinawi. Id.
Appellant contends Kinawi discloses that "continued contact between the
5
Appeal2014-004712
Application 13/437,061
pointer 30 and the source touch-screen" is required to manipulate a virtual
object. Id.
The Examiner finds Kinawi teaches continuous motion following
release of a virtual object in two ways. First, the Examiner finds Kinawi
teaches a "wormhole" feature wherein a user drags an object and releases it
at a designated portion of the screen following which, the object is
automatically moved to a target area. Ans. 17. Second, the Examiner finds
Kinawi teaches a feature wherein a user drags an object and releases it at the
border of the screen following which, the object is automatically moved to a
target area. Ans. 18.
Appellant replies the Examiner inaccurately characterizes Kinawi.
Appellant argues Kinawi discloses dragging a first object, VOBJ, on a
source touch-screen, SS. If a "cross-discontinuity" trigger is manipulated, a
second object, OBJ, appears on a target screen TS. Reply Br. 7. Appellant
contends Kinawi discloses two different triangle icons which concurrently
exist on the source and target screens. Id.
We find Appellant provides the more persuasive reading of Kinawi.
Kinawi discloses an "object is selected and its parameters are stored in a
buffer. The user activates means to trigger manipulation of the object from
the source screen to the target screen. In one embodiment, a pointer is
manipulated continuously on the source screen to effect the transfer.
Kinawi, Abstract. In an alternative embodiment, Kinawi discloses "the
object is dragged in a gesture or to impinge a hot switch which, directs the
6
Appeal2014-004712
Application 13/437,061
computer to release the object on the target screen. In a hardware
embodiment, buttons on a wireless pointer can be invoked to specify cut,
copy or menu options and hold the object in the buffer despite a pointer lift.
Id. Thus, Kinawi teaches either "a pointer is manipulated continuously," or
"buttons on a wireless pointer can be invoked to specify cut, copy or menu
options and hold the object." See id.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 37-96 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
7