Ex Parte IMAI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

13173411 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/173,411 06/30/2011
27562 7590 05/25/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daiji IMAI
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.
RYM-5823-8 9082
EXAMINER
CHEN, FRANKS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
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 DAIJI IMAI, RYOICHIRO ATONO, and
FUMIHIRO NARITA
Appeal2014-009529
Application 13/173,411
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SivIITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009529
Application 13/173,411
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored
thereon a display control program executed by a computer system, having
one or more processors, of an apparatus for arranging and displaying
predetermined character strings in a plurality of drawing areas, the computer
system being caused to execute functions comprising:
a character size acquisition unit for acquiring a character size which is
designated by a user from among a plurality of character sizes;
a number-of-characters calculation unit for calculating the number of
characters arrangeable in each of the drawing areas, in accordance with a
size of each of the drawing areas and the character size designated by the
user;
a selecting unit for selecting, in accordance with the number of
characters calculated by the number-of-characters calculation unit, whether
to display each of the character strings in each of the drawing areas by using
the character size designated by the user, or to display each of the character
strings in each of the drawing areas by using a character size different from
the character size designated by the user; and
a display control unit for displaying the character strings in each of the
drawing areas by using the selected character size, each of the drawing areas
configured such that the selected character size in each individual drawing
area may be changed via an operation input.
2
Appeal2014-009529
Application 13/173,411
Indekeu
Kamen
Chimoto
Smith
Walter
Kendall
Y amagishi
Imai
Prior Art
us 5,212,477
US 6,421,067 B 1
US 6,532,590B1
US 7,076,733 B2
US 2007/0061840 Al
US 2009/0125942 Al
US 7,810,118 B2
US 8,081,189 B2
Examiner's Rejections
May 18, 1993
July 16, 2002
Mar. 11, 2003
July 11, 2006
Mar. 15, 2007
May 14, 2009
Oct. 5, 2010
Dec. 20, 2011
Claims 1-19 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting1 over claims 1-15 of US 8,081,189,
Smith, and Walter.
Claims 1, 12, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chimoto, Smith, and Walter.
Claims 2--4, 6, 7, 11, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chimoto, Smith, \Valter, and Kamen.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chimoto, Smith, Walter, Kamen, and Y amagishi.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chimoto, Smith, Walter, Kamen, and Kendall.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chimoto, Smith, Walter, Kamen, and Indekeu.
1 Appellants do not contest the double-patenting rejection of claims 1-19
which we summarily affirm.
3
Appeal2014-009529
Application 13/173,411
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the Examiner's
responses to the issues raised in the Appeal Brief for the reasons given in the
Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following issues raised in the Reply
Brief for emphasis.
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 12, 16, and 17
Appellants contend the combination of Chimoto, Smith, and Walter
does not teach
selecting, in accordance with the number of characters
calculated by the number-of-characters calculation unit,
whether to display each of the character strings in each of the
drawing areas by using the character size designated by the
user, or to display each of the character strings in each of the
drawing areas by using a character size different from the
character size designated by the user
as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2--4. The Examiner finds columns 6 and 7
of Chimoto teach a first embodiment that determines a number of fixed (or
"designated") size characters that can fit into a slot (or "drawing area"), and
columns 7 through 9 of Chimoto teach a second embodiment that changes
the size of the characters in accordance with the size of a slot. Final Act.
11-16. The Examiner concludes modifying the fixed size of characters
taught in the first embodiment of Chimoto to adjust the size of the characters
so that the characters can fit into the slot as taught by the second
embodiment of Chimoto yields the predictable result of presenting more
information to a user. Final Act. 16. Appellants do not provide persuasive
evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's findings.
4
Appeal2014-009529
Application 13/173,411
Appellants underline the word each throughout pages 2-5 of the
Reply Brief. To the extent Appellants are contending the combination of
Chimoto, Smith, and Walter does not teach selecting a character size for
each of the drawing areas, Appellants have not explained why selecting a
character size for each of the drawing areas was "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" who can select a character size in
a given drawing area as taught by columns 7 through 9 of Chimoto, Figure
3A of Smith, and paragraph 27 of Walter. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'!
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)).
Appellants also contend the combination of Chimoto, Smith, and
Walter does not teach "each of the drawing areas configured such that the
selected character size in each individual drawing area may be changed via
an operation input" as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 4. The Examiner finds
Smith teaches a user selecting a field (or "drawing area"), and Walter
teaches a user selecting a font size for characters in the field. Final Act. 16-
20. Appellants do not persuasively distinguish "the selected character size
in each individual drawing area may be changed via an operation input" as
recited in claim 1, from a user selecting a field and selecting a font size for
characters in the field as taught by the combination of Smith and Walter.
Further, the "operation input" to change the character size does not have to
be input by a user. The "operation input" can be an operation input by one
of the functions disclosed in columns 7-9 of Chimoto. We agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Chimoto, Smith, and Walter teaches "the
selected character size in each individual drawing area may be changed via
an operation input" as recited in claim 1.
5
Appeal2014-009529
Application 13/173,411
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 12, 16, and 17,
which fall with claim 1.
Section 103 rejection of claim 18
Appellants contend the combination of Chimoto, Smith, and Walter
does not teach "wherein the selected character size in each individual
drawing area may be changed via an operation input without changing the
size of the respective drawing area" as recited in claim 18. Reply Br. 5---6.
Appellants' contentions are inconsistent with columns 7 through 9 of
Chimoto and paragraph 27 of Walter.
We sustain the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claim 19
Appellants contend the combination of Chimoto, Smith, and Walter
does not teach "the selected character size in each individual drawing area
may be changed via an operation input such that the selected character size
changes disproportionally with respect to the size of the drawing area" as
recited in claim 19. Reply Br. 6-7. Appellants have not persuasively shown
that changing the character size in each drawing area "disproportionally"
was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art"
who can change the character size in a drawing area to a desired size as
taught by columns 7 through 9 of Chimoto, Figure 3A of Smith, and
paragraph 27 of Walter.
We sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Appeal2014-009529
Application 13/173,411
Section 103 rejection of claim 20
Appellants contend the combination of Chimoto, Smith, and Walter
does not teach "the size of each of the drawing areas and the character size
can be changed via the user designation while the drawing areas and the
character strings are being displayed" as recited in claim 20. Reply Br. 7-8.
Appellants' contentions are inconsistent with Figure 3A, column 4, lines 34--
48, and column 6, lines 58---67 of Smith, which teaches a user changing the
size of the drawing areas and characters while the drawing areas and
characters are being displayed.
We sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejections of claims 2-11, 14, and 15
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 2-11, 14, and 15, which fall with claim 1. We sustain the rejections
of claims 2-11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-20 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7