Ex Parte Ishigaki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 17, 2007

09794420 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 17, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JUNJI ISHIGAKI
____________

Appeal 2007-0664
Application 09/794,420
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: April 17, 2007
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JOHN C. MARTIN, and JAY P. LUCAS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims 10 through 15 and 19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134(a).

Appeal 2007-0664
Application 09/794,420

Representative claim 10 is reproduced below:
10. A composite screen setting method for a portable telephone for
enabling a user to select a screen to be displayed in a standby mode, the
method comprising the steps of:

setting an operation into a screen selection mode;

selecting a foreground screen and a background screen from among a
plurality of screens;

superposing the foreground screen and the background screen on each
other for display as a composite screen;

wherein the background screen is image data down loaded from a site
or a URL and the foreground screen is previously stored image data.

The following references are relied by the Examiner:
Smith US 6,084,951 Jul. 4, 2000
(Filed April 23, 1997)
Suso US 6,466,202 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
(Filed February 23, 2000)
Claims 10 through 15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies upon Smith in view of
Suso.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for the Appellant’s positions,
and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.

2
Appeal 2007-0664
Application 09/794,420

OPINION

We affirm.
Appellant presents arguments as to independent claims 10 and 11
collectively and separately argues dependent claim 13. No other claim on
appeal has been argued.
Contrary to the Examiner’s view expressed in the Answer, we find
that the argued feature of “superposing the foreground screen and the
background screen on each other for display as a composite screen” is
reasonably taught or suggested to the artisan within Smith alone. Pertinent
figures of this reference for our consideration include figures 3 through 11
and 19 through 21. The Electronic Business Card (EBC) in Smith utilizes
icons to associate telephone numbers with individuals and locations as
shown initially in figure 6. The manner in which a new EBC is created is
shown in figure 7 with corresponding displays in the various parts of figure
8. Not only is various numeric information entered onto the display of a
blank EBC as element 820 in figure 8B, an icon select button 832 in figure
8C permits the selection of various icons 841 in figure 8D to be placed
thereon. At least in these respects then there is a composite image that is
form of what the artisan would well consider to be background and
foreground screen information to form a composite image such as that
represented the parts of figure 11.
Various types and categories of icons are shown in figure 9, to include
the ability to customize icons at the bottom of figure 9. The editing screen
1010 shown in Figure 10 in part permits an icon edit capability to include
3
Appeal 2007-0664
Application 09/794,420

the ability to erase and draw icons in the regions labled 1014. The
discussion of figure 6 beginning at the bottom of column 6 at least through
the discussion in the top third of column 8 is pertinent to the nature of the
manner in which these screens and composite screens are achieved in Smith.
The ability of the user to otherwise draw or write or compose a custom icon
permits the ability of overlaying information on the background of a blank
EBC. A composite screen, as claimed, does not require that both a
background and foreground screen cover one or the other or do so
completely. Although it may be interpreted that the word “superposing”
requires an overlay functionality, it is clear that this capability is taught and
shown in Smith. This ability is further amplified in the showings in figures
19 through 21 and their corresponding teachings at columns 11 and 12 of
Smith. The drag and drop capability illustrated and discussed here permits
an overlaying capability corresponding to the claimed superposing for while
the icon moves it overlays the background.
In these respects then we do not agree with Appellant’s view
expressed in the Brief and Reply Brief that even if Smith and Suso were
combined, the noted clause would not have been taught or suggested within
the art. It is thus apparent as well that the additional argument that it would
not have been obvious to have combined the teachings of Suso to Smith is
equally obviated since we consider Suso to be merely cummative to the
teachings already discussed earlier with respect to Smith alone.
As the Examiner has noted with respect to Suso, there are explicit
teachings of superposing what the artisan may well consider to be
foreground and background images to yield a composite screen image. The
4
Appeal 2007-0664
Application 09/794,420

separate screens 10 and 11 of Suso permit this as relied upon by the
Examiner and the parts of figure 2. Moreover, within a single screen 11
there are clearly shown in figure 3b a plurality of images placed upon the
background image as well. Corresponding renderings are shown in the
various parts of figures 5 through 8 of Suso. In any event, the artisan would
well appreciate that Suso’s teachings expand upon and embellish Smith’s
teachings of overlaying images in background and foreground formats to
achieve a composite screen by superposing them. In these respects then, it
clearly would have been obvious for the artisan to have combined the
teachings of both references as well.
Lastly, the features of dependent claim 13 are argued by Appellant.
This claim requires that the display of a background screen be degraded such
that the degradation of the image data is lowered one level. Once again, it
appears clear to us that the artisan would have well appreciated that with
respect to the teachings associated with figure 10 of Smith, the discussion at
column 8, lines 4 through 9, clearly would have indicated the ability of the
artisan to choose to degrade an image by use of the erase button 1011 or
draw button 1012 such that the user may turn off or on selectively each bit of
an icon image simply by touching each block of the icon shown within the
editing screen 1010. Thus, choosing fewer pixels as the Examiner expresses
at page 6 of the Answer degrades the image of either the foreground or
background images according to the teachings in Smith. Appellant’s
argument at the bottom of page 7 of the principal Brief on appeal and at page
5 of the Reply Brief that degradation is intended to mean changing the
contrast among levels of tone or shade of the image is not supported by the
5
Appeal 2007-0664
Application 09/794,420

claim language itself or the disclosure. Even as disclosed and claimed there
is no explanation of what lowering one level is to mean in the context of
degrading an image, as also addressed by the Examiner at page 6 of the
Answer. The artisan may well consider, then, that turning off every third
pixel would degrade the image one level to the extent claimed.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting all
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §1.136(a). See 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

PGC

Pearne & Gordon LLP
1801 East 9th Street
Suite 1200
Cleveland, OH 44114-3108
6