Ex Parte Ishimura

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 11, 2013

11204034 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2013)

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.
11/204,034 08/16/2005 Yuji Ishimura 09812.0045-00000 9827
22852 7590 10/11/2013
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
YANG, ANDREW GUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/11/2013 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 YUJI ISHIMURA
____________

Appeal 2011-002632
Application 11/204,034
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 3-5, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 20 have been
cancelled (App. Br. 5). We REVERSE.

Appeal 2011-002632
Application 11/204,034

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a display control apparatus for
updating a display state of an object for movement with a predetermined
period. Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A display control apparatus comprising:
display means for displaying an object in an initial state;
determination means for determining a first final state of
the object based on a first user input identifying the first final
state;
timing means for generating a series of requests to update
the display of the object to a series of intermediate states
between the first final state and the initial state, the requests
being generated at periodic time intervals and after receiving
the first user input identifying the first final state;
calculation means for calculating the intermediate states
between the first final state and the initial state, the calculation
of each of the intermediate states being deferred until receiving
a corresponding one of the requests to update the display from
the timing means;
update means for updating the display means to display
the object in the intermediate states progressing to the first final
state; and
a central processing unit for implementing at least the
calculation means,
wherein, upon receiving a subsequent user input
identifying a second final state while the object is being
displayed in a first intermediate state and progressing to the
first final state, the calculation means calculates further
intermediate states from the first intermediate state to the
second final state instead of calculating intermediate states
remaining to reach the first final state, and
the update means updates the display to display the
object in the further intermediate states progressing to the
Appeal 2011-002632
Application 11/204,034

3
second final state instead of continuing to display the object
progressing to the first final state.

EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Simister U.S. 2003/0132959 A1 July 17, 2003
Tojo U.S. 6,507,345 B1 Jan. 14, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simister. Ans. 3-6.
Claims 9, 13, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Simister and Tojo. Ans. 7.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Simister teaches “the calculation
of each of the intermediate states being deferred until receiving a
corresponding one of the requests to update the display from the timing
means,” as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in
independent claims 6 through 8?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Simister teaches that the
calculation of each of the intermediate states is deferred, as is recited in
Appeal 2011-002632
Application 11/204,034

4
independent claim 1, and as is commensurately recited in independent
claims 6 through 8 (App. Br. 15, 18).
The Examiner finds that deferring calculation of an intermediate state
until receipt of an update display request from a timing means would be
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view
of Simister (Ans. 4 (citing Simister ¶¶ [0071], [0072])). The Examiner
explains that “animators determine position changes for child views 232,
234, 236, and 238 over time, new position changes are displayed in a
rendering area, thus the calculation is performed upon displaying these new
position changes” (Ans. 4 (citing Simister ¶ [0072])). Simister describes,
“[i]nterface engine 16 is able to continuously enhance view 230 by
displaying many intermediate versions of view 230, such as the intermediate
version shown in Fig. 6B.” Simister ¶ [0071]. As Appellant acknowledges,
Simister describes identifying an initial state and a final state and displaying
intermediate states (App. Br. 15).
However, we agree with Appellant that Simister does not teach that
the calculation of each of the intermediate states is deferred until receipt of a
corresponding one of the requests to update the display from the timing
means (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3). As the Examiner finds with respect to the
claimed calculation means (Ans. 5), Simister mentions, “[i]n alternate
embodiments, a view can dictate that a later called layout or animator
override a previous layout or animator or be queued behind the previously
called layout or animator.” Simister ¶ [0073]. However, Simister does
teach the claimed deferral of calculations until receipt of a request to update
the display from the timing means.

Appeal 2011-002632
Application 11/204,034

5
Thus, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims
2, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 depend from one of claims 1 and 6-8. Thus,
for the same reasons and because the Examiner has not shown that Tojo
would remedy the deficiencies noted above regarding Simister, we also do
not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 15,
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simister.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 13, 16, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simister and Tojo.

REVERSED

tj