Ex Parte Ishii et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

12752922 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121752,922 04/01/2010
22511 7590 02/24/2016
OSHA LIANG LLP,
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masaki Ishii
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.
173031210001 3523
EXAMINER
HOLDER, ANNER N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2016 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):
docketing@oshaliang.com
hathaway@oshaliang.com
dthomas@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAKI ISHII, HIROSHI WAT AN ABE,
and KAZUHIRO T AKEFUJI
Appeal2014-005084
Application 12/752,922
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JOHN P. PINKERTON,
and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.") and Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), and the Examiner's response to
Appellants' arguments. We concur with Appellants' contention the
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Nissan Motor Co.,
Ltd. App. Br. 2.
2 On February 16, 2016, an oral hearing was held in this case.
Appeal2014-005084
Application 12/752,922
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination ofNagai3 and Kuroda4
because the combination fails to teach or suggest the frame comprises "an
inside edge formed in a substantially trapezoidal shape having a shorter
upper edge and a longer lower edge," as recited in independent claim 1, and
as similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 15. App. Br. 7, 9--11; Reply
Br. 4--5.
The Examiner finds Nagai does not teach the frame comprises "an
inside edge formed in a substantially trapezoidal shape having a shorter
upper edge and a longer lower edge," but Kuroda does so. Final Action 3;
Ans. 9--10 (citing Kuroda Fig. 2b; Figs. 4--9; i-fi-133, 34, and 40-43). Citing
Figures 6 and 9 of Kuroda, the Examiner finds Kuroda teaches "an inside
frame is created by the trapezoid shape display[ ed] within the rectangular
display," and "[t]he figures clearly show one end being shorter and another
end longer for the upper and lower edges." Ans. 9--10.
We are persuaded by Appellants' contention the Examiner has erred.
Appellants argue, and we agree, the cited Figs. 2b and 4--9, and paragraphs
33, 34, and 40-43 of Kuroda fail to teach or suggest a frame comprising "an
inside edge formed in a substantially trapezoidal shape having a shorter
upper edge and a longer lower edge." App. Br. 7. Even if we were to agree
with the Examiner's finding that the trapezoidal image displayed on the
rectangular screen of Kuroda, as shown in Figures 6 and 9, is the inside edge
of a virtual frame, we agree with Appellants the Examiner has erred because
Kuroda teaches the trapezoidal shape of the inside edge has a longer upper
3 US 2003/0062827 Al (Apr. 3, 2003).
4 US 2003/0055559 Al (Mar. 20, 2003).
2
Appeal2014-005084
Application 12/752,922
edge and shorter lower edge, whereas the limitation at issue requires the
trapezoidal shape of the inside edge to have a shorter upper edge and a
longer lower edge. That is, the Examiner's finding is deficient because
Kuroda teaches the opposite of what is recited by the limitation at issue
regarding the dimensions of the upper and lower edges of the "inside frame."
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants Kuroda does not teach or suggest the
limitation at issue and, therefore, the Examiner erred in concluding claim 1
would have been obvious over the combination of Nagai and Kuroda. Thus,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, and 15, and
dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
3