Ex Parte AKITOMO et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 16, 2019

14560839 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/560,839 12/04/2014
23117 7590 05/20/2019
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenji AKITOMO
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.
JAR-4988-9 6057
EXAMINER
COHEN, YARON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2019 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 KENJI AKITOMO, NORIYUKI KOY AMA,
KA TSUY ASU FURUKAWA, KEN JI KONDOH, and
TAKAAKI ISHIDA
Appeal2018-007550
Application 14/560,839 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, and 9, which are all of the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 3 and 5-8 have been
cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sharp Kabushiki
Kaisha (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2018-007550
Application 14/560,839
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a touch screen
drawing interface that displays an indicator corresponding to drawing
settings (Spec. 20:1-9, 23:10-13). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An image display apparatus, comprising:
a display unit displaying an image:
a touch detecting unit detecting a touch operation,
superposed on said display unit; and
a control unit executing a process allocated to the touch
operation detected by said touch detecting unit;
wherein
in response to said touch detecting unit detecting a first
touch operation on an indicator icon displayed on a drawing area
of said display unit, said display unit configured to display a
plurality of menu icons representing drawing parameters around
said indicator icon,
in response to said touch detecting unit detecting a second
touch operation on any of said plurality of menu icons, said
display unit configured to change the image of said indicator icon
in accordance with the menu icon having been touched, and
in response to said touch detecting unit detecting a start of
a drawing operation, said display unit configured to erase said
plurality of menu icons and thereby resumes a state in which said
indicator icon alone is displayed.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
DiVerdi US 2013/0229389 Al Sept. 5, 2013
2
Appeal2018-007550
Application 14/560,839
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DiV erdi (Final Act. 3-6).
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived (see MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)).
ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 is
patentable over DiVerdi and specifically that DiVerdi fails to teach or
suggest the recited "indicator icon" and changing the image of the indicator
icon and displaying menu icons representing drawing parameters around the
indicator icon (App. Br. 9-15).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding DiV erdi teaches or
suggests "an indicator icon displayed on a drawing area of said display unit,"
as recited in claim 1 (See App. Br. 13). Specifically, Appellants argue
DiV erdi' s indicator icon, i.e., "'brush type' button[,] ... is located in a
peripheral non-work area - NOT in the 'work area 208' and thus NOT on
the 'drawing area' as required by claim l" (id.).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner relies on DiVerdi's "brush
type" button to teach an "indicator icon" (Ans. 4-5 (citing DiVerdi ,-J 38,
Fig. 2)). We agree with the Examiner's findings that "the entire surface of
3
Appeal2018-007550
Application 14/560,839
the display 200" in DiVerdi teaches the "drawing area" recited in the claim
and, therefore, that DiVerdi teaches "the 'brush type' button is displayed on
the claimed drawing area" (id. at 5).
Appellants' argument that the "'brush type' button in ... DiVerdi is
located in a peripheral non-work area ... and thus NOT on the 'drawing
area' as required by claim l" (App. Br. 13) is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. The claim does not limit or define a "drawing area."
The Specification does not even use the term "drawing area," let alone
define the term. Moreover, the Specification describes a "drawing mode"
encompassing the whole "touch-panel display 124," i.e., an entire display
area (Spec. 23:6-20; see id. Figs. 9, 11). In accordance with the
Specification, the Examiner reasonably interprets that "the entire surface of
the display 200" in DiV erdi teaches "a drawing area." As described above,
DiVerdi's brush type button is displayed within DiVerdi's display 200 and
therefore teaches an indicator icon, as claimed. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding DiVerdi teaches or suggests "an
indicator icon displayed on a drawing area of said display unit," as recited in
claim 1.
Issue 2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding DiV erdi teaches or
suggests "chang[ing] the image of said indicator icon in accordance with the
menu icon having been touched," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 14).
Specifically, Appellants argue "[t]here is absolutely no disclosure in DiVerdi
4
Appeal2018-007550
Application 14/560,839
that if a user touches 'pencil,"' i.e., a menu icon, "that the 'brush type'
button (the alleged indicator icon) would have its image changed" (id.).
We are not persuaded. As discussed above in Issue 1, the Examiner
relies on DiVerdi's "brush type" button to teach an "indicator icon" (Ans. 4-
5). Further, the Examiner finds that "when the user clicks on the 'brush
type' button, the 'brush type' button would be highlighted as the menu
options appear," and so the "change of the 'brush type' button from
highlighted to not highlighted reads on the claimed 'change the image of
said indicator icon"' (id. at 5).
Appellants do not persuade us of Examiner error because Appellants
have not responded to the Examiner's finding that a change ofDiVerdi's
bush type button, i.e., indicator icon, occurs when "the 'brush type' button
would be highlighted" (id.). In particular, Appellants provide no argument
or evidence addressing the Examiner's finding regarding the highlighted
button (see Reply Br. 1-4; see also App. Br. 14). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding DiVerdi teaches or suggests
"chang[ing] the image of said indicator icon in accordance with the menu
icon having been touched," as recited in claim 1.
Issue 3
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding DiV erdi teaches or
suggests "a plurality of menu icons representing drawing parameters around
said indicator icon," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 9
(App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3-4; see App. Br. 14-15). Specifically,
Appellants argue Di Verdi's "pull-down menu ... including a paintbrush,
pencil, charcoal, crayon, oil pastel, eraser, etc.," i.e., menu icons, is "NOT
5
Appeal2018-007550
Application 14/560,839
shown in DiV erdi' s drawings and there is no indication of where these
alleged menu items would be located," i.e., around an indicator icon (App.
Br. 12). Appellants further argue that displaying menu icons around an
indicator icon "means such an arrangement as shown in Fig. 10 of the instant
application, and not the pull-down menu taught by DiVerdi" (Reply Br. 3-4;
App. Br. 13).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As discussed above, the
Examiner relies on DiV erdi' s "brush type" button to teach an "indicator
icon" and further relies on DiVerdi's "pull-down menu" having bush type
choices to teach "a plurality of menu icons representing drawing
parameters" (Ans. 4-5 ( citing DiVerdi ,-J 38, Fig. 2)). Further, the Examiner
finds that when "a pull-down menu is used for the brush type selection
mechanism in DiVerdi, when the user clicks on the 'brush type' button ... a
menu of choices appears below the 'brush type' button" and so Di Verdi
teaches that the "the menu options appear around the 'brush type' button"
(id.).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that "when [a] user clicks on
the 'brush type' button ... a menu of choices appears below the 'brush type'
button" (id.). Appellants do not respond to that finding, presenting no
persuasive evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's
finding (see Reply Br. 1-4; see also App. Br. 12-15).
Furthermore, Appellants' argument that displaying DiV erdi' s menu
icons "below" DiVerdi's indicator icon does not teach menu icons "around"
an indicator icon (Reply Br. 3-4; App. Br. 13) is not commensurate with the
scope of the claims. The claims do not limit the term "around." Further, the
Specification does not define the term "around." Although the Specification
6
Appeal2018-007550
Application 14/560,839
describes that "displaying the menu is not limited to the one shown in
[Figure] 10, in which the menu is displayed around the indicator" and
"[ w ]hat is necessary is that the menu is displayed near the indicator" (Spec.
29: 18-22), that at best describes that "around" does not necessarily mean
"near," but does limit "around" to the arrangement show in Figure 10.
Further, Figure 10 of the Specification shows menu icons 320, 322, and 324
below indicator icon 300. As such, DiVerdi's menu icons "below"
DiV erdi' s "indicator icon" teach menu icons "around" an indicator icon in
accordance with the description of the Specification.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Di Verdi teaches "a plurality of menu icons representing drawing parameters
around said indicator icon," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claim 9. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DiVerdi. We likewise sustain
the Examiner's rejections of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
Appellants offer no additional persuasive arguments for patentability (see
App. Br. 9-15).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Di Verdi is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7