Ex Parte Sugiyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2016

12748044 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121748,044 03/26/2010 Ayako SUGIYAMA
24735 7590 03/22/2016
BAKER BOTTS LLP
C/O INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
THE WARNER
1299 PENNSYLVANIA A VE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400
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.
076376.1719 4393
EXAMINER
NG, AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2016 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):
amy.lynn.whitaker@bakerbotts.com
dcipdocket@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AYAKO SUGIYAMA, TOMOKO SAITO,
and SYUICHIRO SHIMOKI
Appeal2014-000647
Application 12/748,044
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Brother Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
2 No other claims are pending in the instant Application.
Appeal2014-000647
Application 12/748,044
STATEMENT OF THE CASE3
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A display device comprising:
a display unit configured to display a list screen visually
listing plural setting items including a first setting item in a
focused state and a second setting item in a non-focused state;
a focus display unit configured to allocate two stages for
the first setting item, and to display the first setting item in one
of the two stages and a current setting value for the first setting
item in the other of the two stages in the list screen, the current
setting value being a value which is selected from a plurality of
setting values settable to the first setting item, the focus display
unit being configured to display the current setting value for the
first setting item in the other of the two stages without displaying
the setting values other than the current setting value; and
a non-focus display unit configured to allocate one stage
for the second setting item and to display the second setting item
in the one stage, without displaying a current setting value for the
second setting item, in the list screen.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over U.S.
Pat. Publ. 2006/0121939 Al (published June 8, 2006) ("Anwar") and U.S.
Pat. Publ. 2005/0204311 Al (published Sept. 15, 2005) ("Kim").
3 We refer to the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Apr. 22, 2013) for the positions
of Appellants and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 22,
2012) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 31, 2013) for the
positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Brief have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal2014-000647
Application 12/748,044
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Anwar and Kim
teaches or suggests the following limitations recited in claim 1, and similarly
recited limitations in claims 5-7:
1) "a focus display unit configured ... to display ... a current setting
value"· and
'
2) "the focus display unit being configured to display the current
setting value for the first setting item ... without displaying the setting
values other than the current setting value."
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claims 1-7 as unpatentable over the
combination of Anwar and Kim. Final Act. 2-9. Appellants' first argument
that Anwar's secondary menu items do not read on the "current setting
values" as recited in claims 1 and 5-7 (Br. 13-14) is not persuasive because
the Examiner relies on Kim, not Anwar, for teaching current setting values
(Ans. 4--5).
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding it would have
been obvious to modify Anwar' s menu interface to display a current setting
value of a setting item without displaying other setting values as required by
claims 1 and 5-7. Br. 15. Appellants argue that the Examiner's rationale for
the modification is based on a conclusory assertion that the combination
would have the advantage of conserving real estate, i.e., space on a limited
display screen. Id. Appellants specifically refer to the Examiner's reliance
on paragraph 15 of Kim which Appellants allege does not describe
conserving display space, but instead describes displaying menu items in a
3
Appeal2014-000647
Application I2/748,044
manner that can improve discrimination between menu objects. Id. We are
not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for reasons discussed below.
The Examiner finds that Kim teaches displaying a current setting
value in a camera display screen without displaying other setting values.
Final Act. 3. This is depicted in Figure IB of Kim, in which only a current
setting value is displayed (see block 23) without displaying other setting
values. Id. (citing Kim i-f I I). Kim teaches that this is an improvement over
the arrangement of Figure IA, which depicts main menu I I on the left hand
side, and submenu I 3 on the right, wherein the highlighted main menu I I
item (e.g., "3. Set-Up") corresponds to submenu I3. Kim i-f I 1. In other
words, more than one submenu item corresponding to the highlighted main
menu item is displayed in the Figure IA arrangement. Kim teaches that
displaying only a current setting value as shown in Figure IB substantially
reduces the problem of a lack of display space. Kim i-f I3. Accordingly, the
Examiner correctly finds that Kim teaches it is advantageous to display only
a current setting value without displaying other setting values in order to
conserve display space.
Appellants further argue Kim is distinguishable from claims I and 5-7
because Kim teaches displaying a current setting value for each menu item
(i.e., setting item), whereas the claims require displaying a current setting
value only for one setting item in a focused state. Br. I 5. This argument is
not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Anwar, rather than Kim, for
displaying a secondary item only for one primary item in a focused state
without displaying secondary items for other primary items in a non-focused
state. Ans. 6-7.
4
Appeal2014-000647
Application 12/748,044
Appellants also argue that the modification of Anwar to display a
current setting value without displaying any other setting value would render
Anwar unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Br. 16. According to
Appellants, Anwar is distinguishable from claims 1 and 5-7 because rather
than display only one secondary item, Anwar displays several secondary
menu items associated with a primary menu item. Id. at 17. Appellants
allege Anwar displays several menu items, as opposed to just one, because
the purpose of Anwar is to provide a user interface that has a sufficient
number of menu items to manage a data processing device. Id. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument because the technique taught in Kim
allows a user to manage a data processing device. Kim expressly teaches
that a user may change the settings state (i.e., current settings value) of a
settings item by placing a cursor on the corresponding menu item and
pressing a settings button. Ans. 8 (citing Kim i-f 12). Accordingly,
Appellants have not persuaded us that modifying Anwar would prevent
Anwar from providing a user interface with a sufficient number of menu
items to allow a user to manage the device because a user would be able to
access settings and be able to change them as taught by Kim. See id.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 5-7, and dependent claims 2--4 not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5