Ex Parte Fukumoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

14668166 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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.
14/668,166 03/25/2015 Tetsuo FUKUMOTO SHIMP0114USA 5448
72119 7590 09/05/2017
MARK D. SARALINO ( SHARP )
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
PERVAN, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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 TETSUO FUKUMOTO and NAOHIRO ANDO
Appeal 2017-005584
Application 14/668,166
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1—8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-005584
Application 14/668,166
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an “operation console that prevents
confusion of the user even if configuration of the operation console for
selecting an operational mode is changed in an electronic device having a
plurality of operational modes.” Spec. 1:15—18. Claim 1 is illustrative and
is reproduced below:
1. An operation console provided on an apparatus to control
said apparatus, said apparatus operating in a mode selected by a
user from a plurality of modes, said operation console
comprising:
a display device having a display screen, said display
device being configured to display a plurality of information
items respectively corresponding to said plurality of modes on
said display screen;
a detector arranged superposed on said display screen, for
detecting a mode selected by the user based on an information
item displayed on said display screen at a position touched by a
fingertip of the user; and
a display controller controlling said display device;
wherein
said plurality of modes include a first mode and a
second mode having a different priority of selection from said
first mode; and
said display controller includes a display control
circuit displaying a first information item allowing selection of
said first mode on a first area as a central area of said display
screen, and displaying a second information item allowing
selection of said second mode on a second area surrounding
said first area.
2
Appeal 2017-005584
Application 14/668,166
REFERENCES
Chavers et al. US 2004/0216058 A1 Oct. 28, 2004
(hereinafter “Chavers”)
Okuma et al. US 2007/0247641 Al Oct. 25, 2007
(hereinafter “Okuma”)
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1—6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Okuma.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Okuma and Chavers.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Okuma discloses
said plurality of modes include a first mode and a second mode
having a different priority of selection from said first mode; and
said display controller includes a display control circuit
displaying a first information item allowing selection of said
first mode on a first area as a central area of said display screen,
and displaying a second information item allowing selection of
said second mode on a second area surrounding said first area,
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentable over the cited references. We adopt as our
3
Appeal 2017-005584
Application 14/668,166
own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this
appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer. We provide the following
explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings
primarily for emphasis.
“ [D] isplaying a first information item allowing selection of said first
mode on a first area as a central area of said display screen, and displaying
a second information item allowing selection of said second mode on a
second area surrounding said first area ”
Appellants contend Okuma discloses “icons having high importance
to the user are arranged on the left side, upper side or upper-left side as
opposed to the central portion of the screen,” as required in claim 1. App.
Br. 5 ; see also Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection.
Claim 1 recites
said plurality of modes include a first mode and a second mode
having a different priority of selection from said first mode; and
said display controller includes a display control circuit
displaying a first information item allowing selection of said
first mode on a first area as a central area of said display
screen, and displaying a second information item allowing
selection of said second mode on a second area surrounding
said first area
(emphasis added). Appellants’ Specification provides an example of the
arrangement of icons on a home screen wherein “icon 6242 for selecting the
copy mode is arranged in area A at the center,” and “a ring-shaped area B in
which icon 6244 is positioned, icons 6230, 6232, 6234, 6240, 6250, 6252
and 6254 for directly selecting an operational mode related to image
transmission are arranged in concentric manner.” Spec. 37: 10-16; Fig. 7.
4
Appeal 2017-005584
Application 14/668,166
Figure 7 of Appellants’ Specification is reproduced below:
FIG. 7
x'-'
"A" '"■'A y f A-----YYX ’
■ { J ! Df:st< TOP } \
/ v ,.••• • . ... • . V
VS;- • /•" V "\ ; Z' —(J252
4 i-FAX l : t COPY ,1 ; :I DATA iMPt.'T)
..A*?
r r y-/' 6234vf- A, /SH-\ ///••-----lv 6OL0£K
/ 6244 . .-V’
APbA A
\ , •-'
■ \
APtFA s
Figure 7 depicts an exemplary arrangement of icons on a screen image
in accordance with Appellants’ claim 1. Figure 7 shows displaying “a first
information item allowing selection of said first mode” (a first operational
mode icon, encompassing Copy icon 6242 for selecting copy mode) “on a
first area as a central area of said display screen” (the first operational mode
icon in a center area A, encompassing icon 6242 in center Area A), and a
“second information item allowing selection of said second mode” (a second
operational mode icon, encompassing Image Transmission icon 6244 for
selecting the operational mode related to image transmission) “on a second
area surrounding said first area” (the second operational mode icon in a
concentric ring-shaped area B around center area A, encompassing icon
6244 in surrounding concentric Area B). See Spec. 35: 16—17 (“an icon
6242 for selecting the copy mode, and an icon 6244 for inclusively selecting
the operational mode related to image transmission”). Appellants’
Specification further describes an icon providing transition to an operational
5
Appeal 2017-005584
Application 14/668,166
mode “set in advance as a mode related to image transmission displayed
with priority among a plurality of paths for image transmission.” Spec. 37:
22-24.
The broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellants’
Specification, of a “plurality of modes includ[ing] a first mode and a second
mode having a different priority of selection from said first mode” and
“displaying a first information item allowing selection of said first mode on
a first area as a central area of said display screen, and displaying a second
information item allowing selection of said second mode on a second area
surrounding said first area” encompasses displaying a first operational mode
icon and other operational mode icons according to priority with the first
operational mode icon in a center area A and another operational mode icon
in a concentric ring-shaped area B around center area A. See In re Am.
Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO
is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during
examination.”).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Okuma discloses
“indicating importance (priority) of icons to the user” with icons displayed
“as shown in Figures 6 and 8.” Ans. 3^4 (citing Okuma Figs. 3, 6, 8).
6
Appeal 2017-005584
Application 14/668,166
Figure 6 of Okuma is reproduced below:
Figure 6 depicts Okuma’s arrangement of icons on a screen image.
Okuma describes “the first display region A1 is composed of first to
n-th regions (n is 2 or a greater integer) that are ring-shaped and concentric
to one another” and “the (x-l)th ring-shaped region (x is 2 or a greater
integer) is located within the x-th ring-shaped region.” Okuma 1 35.
Okuma further describes “displaying] an icon of the icons that are to be
displayed in the first display region Al, which is more important than the
icon displayed in the x-the region, in the (x-l)th region.” Okuma 136. For
example, the icons displayed in region 900 (the x-1 region) are more
important than the icons displayed in region 901 (the xth region). Okuma
Fig. 6; 1136, 60.
7
Appeal 2017-005584
Application 14/668,166
Thus, we find that displaying of a first mode icon in a center area and
a second mode icon of differing importance or priority than the first mode
icon in a concentric ring-shaped area surrounding the center area, as required
by claim 1, encompasses Okuma’s displaying an icon in display region A1 ’s
concentric and ring-shaped (x-1) region such as center region 900 of Figure
6, which is more important than an icon displayed in A1 ’s concentric and
ring-shaped x-th region 901, where the xth region 901 surrounds (x-1)
region 900. Okuma Fig. 6; 35—36, 60.
“ [Pjlurality of modes include a first mode and a second mode having
a different priority of selection from said first mode ”
Appellants further contend Okuma’s “icons having a larger size do not
represent increased important” and “icon position (not size) is determined
based on importance.” Reply Br. 4. Appellants do not rebut the Examiner’s
finding that Okuma discloses “several ways of indicating importance
(priority) of icons to the user.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Ans. 3).
As noted supra, Okuma describes “several ways of indicating
importance (priority) of icons to the user.” Ans. 3. Specifically, Okuma’s
disclosure of displaying icons in the x-th or (x-1) region, wherein the regions
are concentric and ring-shaped, and icons in the (x-1) region are more
important than icons in the x-th region, describes two modes with different
priorities of selection as required by claim 1. See Okuma ]Hf 35—36. Thus,
we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection.
8
Appeal 2017-005584
Application 14/668,166
“[A] first information item allowing selection of said first mode” and
“a second information item allowing selection of said second mode ”
Appellants further contend Okuma’s icons corresponding to the
setting items related to a selected process “correspond to settings, not [the]
modes” of claim 1. App. Br. 6—7. We are not persuaded of Examiner error
in the rejection.
Appellants’ Specification describes “icons 6210-6274 representing
operational modes are displayed together with the names or abbreviations of
operations modes” and “the operational main includes, in addition to the
maintenance mode (system setting, language setting and the like), the copy
and the operational modes related to image transmission.” Spec. 35:8—15.
Appellants’ Figure 6 shows system setting icon 6222 and language setting
icon 6262 in an area surrounding the center area containing copy icon 6242.
Therefore, Appellants’ Specification provides examples of “modes” that
include settings. The scope of the claimed “first mode” and “second mode,”
when read in light of page 35 and Figure 6 of Appellants’ Specification,
encompasses settings.
Describing Figure 6, cited by the Examiner, Okuma discloses “the
information displayed changes on the interface screen 101 when the user
selects the icon 601, i.e., copy-mode icon,” and displaying, “in the first
display region Al, the icons corresponding to the set items related to the
process mode selected (i.e., copy mode).” Okuma ^fl[ 29, 31. Figure 6
shows these set icons include settings such as document type in the central
(x-l)th region 900 of area Al, and color mode, density, sheet cassette, and
scaling in the surrounding x-th region 901 of area Al.
Thus, we agree that Okuma discloses displaying icons corresponding
to set items related to a selected process mode, such as document type icons
9
Appeal 2017-005584
Application 14/668,166
(i.e., a “first mode”) in the central (x-l)th region 900 (i.e., a “first area as a
central area”), and displaying additional icons corresponding to other set
items related to the selected process mode, such as color mode, density,
sheet cassette, and scaling (i.e., a “second mode”) in the concentric
surrounding x-th region 901 (i.e., “a second area surrounding said first
area”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as commensurate independent claim 5, and
dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 8, not separately argued.
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claim 7. Therefore, the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 7 is
sustained for similar reasons as noted supra.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Okuma is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Okuma and Chavers 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
10