Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2019004510 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/725,360 10/05/2017 Takeshi TANI 70404.3633/dj 3100
54072 7590 12/16/2020
SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA
C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
MENBERU, BENIYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM
epreston@kbiplaw.com
uspto@kbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte TAKESHI TANI,
SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA, and
SHINSAKU TOHKI
________________

Appeal 2019-004510
Application 15/725,360
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8. Claim 1 is canceled.
Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner indicates that claims 4 and 6 would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations in the
claims from which they depend. Final Act. 11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004510
Application 15/725,360

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to an operation console
with a touch-panel display that displays a copy mode basic screen image that
includes “a group of virtual ten keys for inputting the number of copies.”
Abstract. “When image data is input by a document reading unit, the touch-
panel display causes a preview image based on the image data to be
displayed with higher priority than the group of virtual ten keys, in the copy
mode basic screen image.” Id.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
(Disputed Limitations Emphasized and Bracketing Added)
2. An operation console for use in an image processing
apparatus including an image input that inputs image data,
comprising:
a touch-panel having a display screen,
a processor configured or programmed to define and function
as:
a data input that executes a process to input image data
using the image input in response to an instruction to
start input of image data;
an input receiver that displays, on the display screen, an
input receiving image including an input key that
receives an operation input by a user; [and]
a request receiver that receives a request to display a
preview image; and
[1] a preview image display that displays, in response to
reception of the request to display a preview image, a preview
image of image data input by the image input on the display
screen with a priority higher than the input receiving image.
Appeal 2019-004510
Application 15/725,360

3

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Ueda US 6,714,314 B1 Mar. 30, 2004
Miyata US 2007/0214409 A1 Sept. 13, 2007
Tonami et al. (“Tonami”) US 2009/0201543 A1 Aug. 13, 2009
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Tonami and Miyata. Final Act. 5–10.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Tonami, Miyata, and Ueda.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal was
taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 2 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Tonami’s
screen display of a preview image and input keys teaches “a preview image
display that displays a preview image of image data input by the image input
on the display screen with a size higher than the input receiving image.”
Final Act. 5–6 (citing Tonami ¶¶ 81–86, 90, 108–09, Figs. 5B, 6B). For
example, when a small document is placed on the display screen to be read
by an area sensor portion, preview image 412 of the display screen has a
Appeal 2019-004510
Application 15/725,360

4

large size relative to the input keys of the display screen. Tonami Fig. 5B.
But when a larger document is placed on the display screen, obscuring the
preview image and input keys (id. Fig. 6A), preview image 412 and the
input keys are resized in a manner that makes preview image 412 small
relative to the input keys (id. Fig. 6B). Thus, the Examiner relies on
Miyata’s use of preview button 504, and its prioritization of container 701
for preview area 505 as having the highest priority, to teach that “preview
image display displays a preview image in response to reception of the
request to display a preview image; and wherein the preview image is
displayed with a priority higher than the input receiving image.” Final Act.
6–7 (citing Miyata ¶¶ 51, 53, 61–65, 100, 114–26, Figs. 5, 7). The Examiner
concludes that recitation [1] would have been obvious in light of the
combined teachings and suggestions of Tonami and Miyata because an
artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated “to provide priority
values for the different areas of the display corresponding to different items
so that the different items on the screen can be arranged in accordance with
the priority values of the respective items such that the areas having high
importance can be prioritized during the arrangement.” Id. at 7 (citing
Miyata ¶¶ 83, 85, 145).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Tonami does not
teach or suggest that the preview image 412 is displayed with a priority
higher than the ‘N in 1’ key 415” because “the relationship (i.e., the relative
size) of the preview image 412 and the ‘N in 1’ key 415 of Tonami has
nothing to do with a response to request display of the preview image 412.”
Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner correctly characterizes this argument as merely
a restatement of acknowledged deficiencies in Tonami. Ans. 10. The
Appeal 2019-004510
Application 15/725,360

5

Examiner relies on Miyata to address these deficiencies. Id. Therefore,
Appellant’s arguments regarding Tonami are not persuasive.
Appellant further contends the Examiner erred because “providing
Tonami with the preview button 504 of Miyata would have no effect on
when and why the preview image 412 or the ‘N in 1’ key 415 of Tonami is
displayed with a higher priority.” Appeal Br. 6. But Miyata specifically
discloses that “[w]hen the user presses the preview button 504 after entering
the URL, the document designated in the URL designation area 503 is
downloaded, and a preview of the document is displayed in a preview area
505.” Miyata ¶ 51 (cited in Final Act. 7); see also id. ¶ 136 (“a press on the
preview button 504 by a user is the event for changing the [user interface]
arrangement”). Thus, Miyata’s preview button 504 affects when to display
preview image 412 (e.g., when to download and preview a document).
Moreover, container 701 (container 1), which corresponds to preview area
505, has the highest priority in Miyata. Id. ¶¶ 63, 114, Figs. 5, 7 (cited in
Final Act. 6–7); see also id. ¶ 144 (“an image to be placed in the container
701 (container 1)”). Thus, the preview area 505, being displayed in the
container having the highest priority, is displayed with a higher priority than
other displayed images, such as an input receiving image. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Tonami and Miyata teaches
or suggests disputed recitation [1]. Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 12–13.
Appellant argues “the priorities disclosed by Miyata are not indicative
of how the areas are displayed relative to each other, but instead indicate the
order in which the arrangement of the containers 1 to 5 . . . are calculated
based on the attributes shown in Table 10 of Miyata.” Reply Br. 2. Thus,
Appellant argues “the priorities of the containers of Miyata have nothing to
Appeal 2019-004510
Application 15/725,360

6

do with displaying a preview image (e.g., 701) with a priority higher than an
input receiving image (e.g., 703).” Id. at 3. Appellant does not identify, nor
are we able to discern, any recitations or disclosures in the Specification that
limit the claimed priority in a manner that excludes the prioritization
teachings of Miyata. The Specification, for example, discloses that “a first
display control device displaying . . . an image based on the image data on
the display device with higher priority than the ten keys.” Spec. 3:22–24; see
also, e.g., Spec. 32:5–7 (“preview image 3106 or 3306 is displayed with
higher priority than the group of virtual ten keys 3102 or 3302”); Appeal Br.
3 (citing Spec. 23:12–17, 28:1–5, Fig. 13). But neither the Specification nor
claim 2 limit how the display control device displays the image with higher
priority. Thus, calculating where a container (and the images its contains)
will be displayed before calculating where other containers (and their
images) will be displayed falls within a reasonably broad interpretation, in
light of the Specification, of displaying a preview image of image data (e.g.,
a preview image in the highest priority container, whose location is
calculated first) with a priority higher than an input receiving image (e.g., an
input image in a lower priority container, whose position is calculated after
the position of the preview image is calculated).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 2, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8, which Appellant does not argue
separately, except to argue that Udea fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of
Tonami and Miyata, which are not deficient for the reasons discussed above.
Appeal Br. 6–7.
Appeal 2019-004510
Application 15/725,360

7

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
2, 3, 7, 8 103(a) Tonami, Miyata 2, 3, 7, 8
5 103(a) Tonami, Miyata, Ueda 5
Overall
Outcome
2, 3, 5, 7, 8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED