Ex Parte Tsujimoto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2016

13448736 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/448,736 04/17/2012
72119 7590 08/08/2016
MARK D, SARALINO ( SHARP )
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19THFLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kunihiko TSUJIMOTO
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.
HARAP0330US 4582
EXAMINER
TAGGART, MARCHELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2016 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUNIHIKO TSU JIM OTO 1
Appeal2015-001770
Application 13/448,736
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN R. KENNY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITT A, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-5. Claims 1 and 4 are independent.
Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sharp Kabushiki
Kaisha. See Appeal Brief 2.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellant's Specification filed
Apr. 17, 2012 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed Sept.
19, 2013; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Apr. 7, 2014; (4) the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed Sept. 8, 2014; and (5) the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed Nov. 5, 2014.
Appeal2015-001770
Application 13/448,736
BACKGROlH~D
According to Appellant, the application relates to a multifunction
peripheral having a plurality of device functions and which is programmed
to be connected to an information processing device via a communication
network. Spec. 1. In the multifunction peripheral, it is possible to display
an operation screen of an application program, which is executed in the
information processing device, without communicating with the information
processing device after an instruction to activate the application program is
received. Spec. 51 and 52. This allows the operation screen to be displayed
more quickly in the multifunction peripheral. Id. at 52. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A multifunction peripheral having a plurality of device
functions and which is programmed to be connected to an information
processing device via a communication network so as to communicate
with the information processing device, the information processing
device inciuding a first web server section and an extemai appiication
section which is programmed to execute an application program,
compnsmg:
a displaying section programmed to display an operation screen
in accordance with operation screen data;
an operation input section for receiving an instruction input
from a user;
a second web server section;
a storage section arranged to store operation screen data of the
application program executed in the information processing device;
a web browser section; and
a device control section programmed to control an operation of
each of the plurality of device functions,
the web browser section programmed to make, to the second
web server section, a request for acquisition of the operation screen
2
Appeal2015-001770
Application 13/448,736
data of the application program executed in the information
processing device, when the operation input section receives an
instruction to activate the application program,
the second web server section (i) programmed to read, from the
storage section, the operation screen data of the application program
in accordance with the request for acquisition and (ii) programmed to
transmit the operation screen data of the application program to the
web browser section in response to the request for acquisition, the
displaying section programmed to display an operation screen in
accordance with the operation screen data obtained by the web
browser section from the second web server section,
no communication with the information processing device being
carried out after the operation input section receives the instruction to
activate the application program executed in the information
processing device and until the displaying section displays the
operation screen in accordance with the operation screen data,
the web browser section making, in a case where (i) the
operation input section receives an instruction input from a user to the
operation screen of the application program and (ii) the instruction
input requires the application program to make a request for
transmission of a control instruction, a request to the first web server
section for transmission of a control instruction in accordance with the
instruction input,
the device control section controlling an operation of each of
the plurality of device functions in accordance with the control
instruction obtained by the web browser section from the first web
server section.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kuroyanagi US 8,176,075 B2 May 8, 2012
3
Appeal2015-001770
Application 13/448,736
REJECTION
Claims 1and3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kuroyanagi. Final Act. 3.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and
issues raised by Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellant and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kuroyanagi discloses "the
second web server section (i) programmed to read, from the storage section,
the operation screen data of the application program in accordance with the
request for acquisition ... no communication with the information
processing device being carried out after the operation input section receives
the instruction to activate the application program executed in the
information processing device and until the displaying section displays the
operation screen in accordance with the operation screen data," as recited in
claim 1?
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
"Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. US.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
4
Appeal2015-001770
Application 13/448,736
DISCUSSION
The Examiner relies upon Kuroyanagi' s multifunction device 100 to
disclose "the second web server section (i) programmed to read, from the
storage section, the operation screen data of the application program in
accordance with the request for acquisition," as recited in claim 1. Final
Act. 5. More specifically, the Examiner states that Kuroyanagi' s "web
browser function 110 interprets that [sic] contents from the webserver,
which includes data stored in the internal database." Id. (citing Kuroyanagi
col. 3, 11. 57----62).
In response, Appellant argues that "Kuroyanagi simply displays on
the display unit 122 either internal contents within the multifunction device
100, or web contents from the web server 150" and thus "Kuroyanagi does
not disclose or suggest that the internal contents are executed in the web
server and then stored internally on the multifunction device." Appeal
Br. 16.
We agree with Appellant's contention that the Examiner fails to
demonstrate that Kuroyanagi discloses reading operation screen data from
the internal content database 142 of multifunction device 100, where the
operation screen data is of an application program executed in the web
server 150. Instead, as Appellant contends, Kuroyanagi discloses that
multifunction device 100 either reads content from internal content database
142 or multifunction device 100 obtains content from web server 150 via
network interface 130. Kuroyanagi col. 3, 11. 63----67.
5
Appeal2015-001770
Application 13/448,736
The Examiner's rejection of the disputed limitation further relies on
Kuroyanagi's discussion of providing window 800, as in Fig. 8, in response
to property tab 710 being pressed. Final Act. 5 (citing Kuroyanagi col. 8, 11.
51---62.
More specifically, the Examiner finds that:
Kuroyangi [sic] discloses obtaining operational screen data in
Column 8, line 51---62; when a menu key 320 is pressed, property
710 is selected from the menu by the user; detailed information
about the content is conveyed to the web browser which displays
information, including the URL of the content shown on the
display.
Final Act. 5 and Ans. 10 (citing Kuroyanagi col. 8, 11. 51---62).
Thus, the portion of Kuroyanagi relied upon by the Examiner shows
displaying, on multifunction device 100, window 800 including a URL of
content stored in web server 150, upon the user's selection of property tab
710 from menu 700. See also Kuroyanagi Figs. 7 and 8. The Examiner,
however, fails to establish that the displayed window 800 discloses
operation screen data of an application program executed in web server 150
or that window 800 is obtained from a storage section of multifunction
device 100.
Appellant further argues that Kuroyanagi fails to disclose, "no
communication with the information processing device being carried out [by
the multifunction peripheral] after the operation input section receives the
instruction to activate the application program executed in the information
processing device and until the displaying section displays the operation
screen in accordance with the operation screen data." Appeal Br. 16-19.
6
Appeal2015-001770
Application 13/448,736
The rejection of this limitation also relies on Kuroyanagi's discussion
of providing a pop-up menu window, as in Fig. 8, in response to property
tab 710 being pressed. Final Act. 5 (citing Kuroyanagi col. 8, 11. 51---62.
The Examiner, however, fails to establish that Kuroyanagi discloses an
absence of communication between multifunction device 100 and web
server 150 for a predetermined duration in providing window 800.
We therefore agree that the Examiner fails to demonstrate that
Kuroyanagi discloses all of the disputed limitations. Because we agree with
at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need
not reach the merits of Appellant's other contentions.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1,
along with the rejection of claim 4, which recites commensurate limitations,
and which involves, in relevant part, the same reference Kuroyanagi, along
with dependent claims 3 and 5, which both stand with independent claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
REVERSED
7