Ex Parte Homma et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 18, 201612779607 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121779,607 05/13/2010 60803 7590 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 620 Herndon Parkway Suite 320 Herndon, VA 20170 08/19/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Fuminori Homma 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. 1946-0152 8869 EXAMINER LI, LIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2693 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/19/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FUMINORI HOMMA and TATSUSHI NASHIDA1 Appeal2015-002423 Application 12/779,607 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-17, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to a display control apparatus, and related methods. Spec. Abstract, i-fi-11, 7-16. Representative claim 1, 1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Sony Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-002423 Application 12/779,607 reproduced from the Claims ,LA~ppendix of the ,LA~ppeal Brief, reads as follo\x1s (disputed limitations in italics): 1. An apparatus comprising a display unit, wherein the apparatus is configured to: detect contact of an operation tool on the display unit including the center of gravity of a contact area of the operation tool on the display unit; determine a position of the center of gravity of a contact mark corresponding to the detected center of gravity of the contact area of the operation tool; display the contact mark on the display unit representing the contact area where the operation tool contacts the display unit; and shift an image on the display unit including the contact mark near the contact area of the operation tool such that the operation tool no longer obstructs the view of the contact mark on the display unit based on the determined position of the center of gravity of the contact mark. REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 2, 7, and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bernstein (US 2010/0079405 Al; published Apr. 1, 2010) and Pihlaja (US 2009/0002326 Al; published Jan. 1, 2009). Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bernstein, Pihlaja, and Tee et al. (US 2010/0287154 Al; published Nov. 11, 2010) ("Tee"). Claims 3---6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bernstein, Pihlaja, and Westerman et al. (US 2009/0228842 Al; published Sept. 10, 2009) ("Westerman"). 2 The rejection of claims 1, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement was withdrawn in the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Decision entered July 28, 2014. 2 Appeal2015-002423 Application 12/779,607 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief,3 the Examiner's Answer, and the arguments in the Reply Brief. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions, and agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and conclusions of law. Specific findings and arguments are highlighted and addressed below for emphasis. Appellants assert that in the Final Office Action the Examiner admits that Bernstein does not teach or suggest shift an image on the display unit including the contact mark near the contact area of the operation tool such that the operation tool no longer obstructs the view of the contact mark on the display unit based on the determined position of the center of gravity of the contact mark, as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 12 (citing Final Act. 5). Appellants further assert that the Examiner relies on Pihlaja's teachings to address the admitted deficiencies of Bernstein, and contend that Pihlaja also does not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation of claim 1. See id. at 12-13. Specifically, Appellants contend that there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Pihlaja of anything being based on the determined position of the center of gravity of the contact mark. See id. at 13-19 (citing Pihlaja Figs. 3A-3C, 4A--4C, i-fi-f 11-17, 41, 42). Appellants conclude that "neither Bernstein not Pihlaja teach or suggest (alone or in combination) all of the recitations of the claims." See id. at 19. 3 Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") refers to the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed September 29, 2014. 3 Appeal2015-002423 Application 12/779,607 iA~ppellants' arguments are misplaced because, contraP; to iA~ppellants' assertions, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Bernstein and Pihlaja to teach or suggest shift an image on the display unit including the contact mark near the contact area of the operation tool such that the operation tool no longer obstructs the view of the contact mark on the display unit based on the determined position of the center of gravity of the contact mark, as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5-7. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Bernstein for teaching or suggesting shifting an image on the display unit such that the operation tool no longer obstructs the image based on the determined position of the center of gravity of the contact mark (see Final Act. 4--5 (citing Bernstein Figs. 12A-12C, i-f 243)), and relies on Pihlaja for teaching or suggesting shifting an image on the display unit including the contact mark near the contact area of the operation tool such that the operation tool no longer obstructs the view of the contact mark on the display unit (see Final 1A .. ct. 5-7 (citing Pihlaja Figs. 1, 3A-3C, 4A--4C, 5, 6, i-fi-111-17, 28, 40-41)). Appellants do not address sufficiently Bernstein's teachings of shifting an image on the display unit such that the operation tool (i.e., finger) no longer obstructs the view of the image on the display unit based on the determined position of the center of gravity of the contact mark (see Bernstein Figs. 12A-12C), as combined with Pihlaja's teachings of shifting the image and the contact mark (i.e., cursor) such that the operation tool (i.e., finger) no longer obstructs the view of the contact mark (i.e., cursor) on the display unit (see Pihlaja's Figs. 3A-3C). One cannot show non-obviousness by analyzing a reference individually, as Appellants have done here, where the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 4 Appeal2015-002423 Application 12/779,607 1986). Because the Examiner relies on the combination of Bernstein and Pihlaja, not Pihlaja alone, to teach all of the disputed limitations, we also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "a 'broadest reasonable interpretation' cannot summarily ignore the recitations related to anything being based on the determined position of the center of gravity of the contact mark." See App. Br. 19. For all these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 7, and 11-17, not argued separately, as unpatentable over Bernstein and Pihlaja. As to claims 3-5 and 8, which ultimately depend from claim 1, Appellants argue that Westerman does not remedy the deficiencies of Bernstein and Pihlaja. See App. Br. 21. For the same reasons as claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 3-5, and 8 as unpatentable over Bernstein, Pihlaja, and Westerman. In regard to independent claims 9 and 10, Appellants assert that Tee fails to remedy the deficiencies of Bernstein and Pihlaja as to claim 1, upon which claims 9 and 10 depend. See App. Br. 20. Claims 9 and 10 do not depend from claim 1, but claims 9 and 10 recite limitations similar to claim 1. Compare App. Br. 28, 29, with App. Br. 26. For the same reasons as claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of independent claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Bernstein, Pihlaja, and Tee. Dependent claim 6 ultimately depends from claim 1, and recites "wherein the screen display processing unit enlarges and displays near the contact area the object, the contact mark, and the pointer displayed in the predetermined display area on the display unit in the case where the predetermined state is detected." The Examiner relies on Westerman to 5 Appeal2015-002423 Application 12/779,607 teach or suggest the limitations of claim 6. See Final ,LA~ct. 28-29 (citing Westerman Fig. 5, i-f 109). Appellants contend that there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Westerman of anything that is enlarged, as recited in claim 6. See App. Br. 22-24 (citing Westerman Fig. 5, i-f 109); Reply Br. 14--16. Appellants argue that Westerman' s disclosure of changing the font of the selected text does not teach the disputed limitations because changing the font is fundamentally different than enlarging. See App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 16. Appellants further assert that it can be readily appreciated as in word processing applications the "font" and the "font size" are two separate variables, and Westerman makes no mention of font size. See App. Br. 24; Reply Br 16. We agree with the Examiner that Westerman' s teaching of changing the font of the selected text, and/or bolding the selected text teaches or suggests enlarging the selected text. See Ans. 11-12 (providing examples of text with Browallia New size 12 font, Arial font size 12, and Arial size 12 bold font). For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of dependent claim 6 as unpatentable over Bernstein, Pihlaja, and Westerman. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-1 7. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation