Ex Parte Kamiyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

13567477 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/567,477 08/06/2012 YOSHIROH KAMIY AMA
52021 7590 09/29/2016
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
JP920080244US2_8150-0269 9329
EXAMINER
TITCOMB, WILLIAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIROH KAMIY AMA and GOU NAKASHIMA
Appeal2015-005750
Application 13/567,477
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claim 21. Claims 24--33 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims
1-20, 22, and 23 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a display device,
program, and display method for moving an object in accordance with
Appeal2015-005750
Application 13/567,477
operation of a pointer performed by a user (Abstract; Spec. 1 if 1 ). Claim 21
is reproduced below:
21. A method of moving a drag object on a screen in
accordance with an operation of a pointer, the display method
compnsmg:
moving, using a processor, the drag object by a movement
amount larger than a movement amount of a pointer,
wherein a display position of the pointer is moved m
accordance with an operation performed by a user;
detecting a target object on the screen, the target object
being a destination of the drag object; and
displaying the drag object in a position closer to the target
object than a display position of the pointer moved m
accordance with an operation performed by a user.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Takeuchi et al.
Szeto
US 7,475,357 B2
US 2007 /0234226 Al
REJECTION
Jan. 6,2009
Oct. 4, 2007
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takeuchi and Szeto (Ans. 4---6; Final Act. 4--7; Non-Final
Act. 2-3).
2
Appeal2015-005750
Application 13/567,477
ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 21
Appellants contend their claimed invention is not obvious over
Takeuchi and Szeto (App. Br. 7-9). The issue presented by the arguments
1s:
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Takeuchi and Szeto teaches or suggests "displaying the drag object in a
position closer to the target object than a display position of the pointer
moved in accordance with an operation performed by a user," as recited in
claim 21?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend although Szeto teaches the recycle bin 104 is
presented closer to the dragged object, the recycle bin 104 is also presented
closer to the pointer (App. Br. 8). Thus, according to Appellants, although
Szeto teaches the drag object may be in a position closer to the target object,
Szeto does not teach the drag object is closer to the target object than a
display position of the pointer (id.).
The Examiner finds the claim requires "( 1) displaying the drag object
in a position closer to the target object (2) than a display position of the
pointer [drag object] moved in accordance with an operation performed by a
user" (Ans. 9). Thus, the Examiner finds Szeto teaches the drop target
object, recycle bin 106, is presented closer and the target object (recycle bin
104) remains in the comer (id. (citing Szeto, Fig. 2)).
We agree with Appellants' argument that the Examiner has not
adequately explained how Szeto teaches the disputed limitation.
Specifically, the Examiner has not set forth with specificity where the
3
Appeal2015-005750
Application 13/567,477
combination of Takeuchi and Szeto teaches or at least suggests a drag object,
a target object, and a display position of a pointer. The Examiner seems to
be finding the target object is the recycle bin 104. However, the Examiner
has not clarified where Szeto teaches a drag object and a display position of
a pointer. Additionally, the Examiner has not set forth with specificity how
the combination of Takeuchi' s teachings with Szeto' s teachings teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Takeuchi and Szeto.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takeuchi and Szeto is reversed. 1
REVERSED
1 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner's attention is directed to
the recitation of "a display position of the pointer" two different places in the
claim. Specifically, claim 21 recites "wherein a display position of the
pointer is moved" and "displaying ... closer to the target object than a
display position of the pointer" (emphases added).
4