Ex Parte Kashiwagi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2018

14465576 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2018)

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.
14/465,576 08/21/2014 Takashi Kashiwagi 9333-758 IWP13033US 3112
74989 7590
BGL/Alpine
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
03/09/2018 EXAMINER
CHUNG, MONG-SHUNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2018 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 TAKASHI KASHIWAGI and YU SAGI
Appeal 2017-007526
Application 14/465,576
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3—7. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alpine Electronics,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-007526
Application 14/465,576
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to an electronic book apparatus
having a page feeding function for feeding multiple pages at a time and
displaying a page. Spec. 13. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the claimed
invention, reads as follows:
1. An electronic book apparatus comprising:
an already-read information giving unit configured to
provide already-read information indicating an already-viewed
state of a page of an electronic book that is rendered to a user;
and
a page feeding processing unit configured to, in
accordance with a page feeding operation performed by the user,
perform page feeding processing to feed multiple pages from a
currently-displayed page that are within a range of pages to
which the already-read information giving unit provides already-
read information indicating that the page of the electronic book
has been rendered to the user;
wherein in a case where the user performs the page feeding
operation for feeding pages from the currently-displayed
already-read page to an unread page to which the already-read
giving unit does not provide the already-read information
indicating that the page of the electronic book has been rendered
to the user, the page feeding processing unit stops the page
feeding processing at a last page of already-read pages to which
the already-read information is given.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Keohane US 2009/0106688 A1 Apr. 23,2009
Jangetal. US 2013/0117702 A1 May 9,2013
Seo et al. US 2013/0321340 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
2
Appeal 2017-007526
Application 14/465,576
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, and 5—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jang and Keohane. Final Act. 6—10.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jang, Keohane, and Seo. Final
Act. 10-11.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Jang and Keohane does not
teach or suggest
wherein in a case where the user performs the page feeding
operation for feeding pages from the currently-displayed
already-read page to an unread page to which the already-read
giving unit does not provide the already-read information
indicating that the page of the electronic book has been rendered
to the user, the page feeding processing unit stops the page
feeding processing at a last page of already-read pages to which
the already-read information is given,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 4—6. Appellants argue
Keohane fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations because “Keohane
is not directed to an electronic book reader.” App. Br. 5. In this regard,
Appellants argue the Examiner’s construction of “electronic book reader” as
“any electronic device capable of presenting text or graphic content for a
reader to consume” (see Final Act. 3) is unreasonable because “[ujnder this
definition, a desktop computer utilizing an internet browser to present
content from cnn.com ... or a smartphone utilizing a messaging application
to present a text message would be an electronic book reader” and “one of
skill in the art would not consider these two instances to be electronic book
readers.” App. Br. 5.
3
Appeal 2017-007526
Application 14/465,576
Appellants further argue the cited references fail to teach or suggest
the disputed limitations because “Keohane does not utilize information
related to whether a vase of an electronic book has been read to prevent
the page feeding processing unit from feeding unread pages.” App. Br. 6.
Appellants acknowledge Keohane teaches placing “a hard anchor in text to
prevent a user from scrolling past the hard anchor in a window of text.”
App. Br. 6. Appellants argue, however, “[a]n anchor in text is not the same
as information related to whether a page of an electronic book has been
read” and “[bjecause Keohane does not teach that the displayed content is a
page of an electronic book, Keohane necessarily does not teach utilizing
information related to whether a page of an electronic book has been read to
prevent the page feeding processing unit from feeding unread pages.” App.
Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 4—5. Additionally, Appellants argue the following:
Even if Jang teaches an electronic book reader, the
Examiner has already acknowledged that Jang does not teach an
electronic book reader that performs the element at issue that
specifically relates to an electronic book reader. Keohane does
not teach or suggest an electronic book reader where, when a user
performs a page feeding operation for feeding pages from a
currently-displayed already-read page to an unread page to which
the already-read giving unit does not provide already-read
information indicating that the vase of the electronic book has
been rendered to the user, the page feeding processing unit stops
the page feeding processing at a last page of the already-read
pages to which the already-read information is given.
Reply Br. 5.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
4
Appeal 2017-007526
Application 14/465,576
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner finds Jang teaches an
electronic book reader that provides information regarding read and non­
read pages of content, where the user can navigate to different pages via a
scroll bar.” Final Act. 7 (citing Jang 136). The Examiner finds Jang
teaches a user can use the scroll bar to initiate a page skip operation to move
between moving between a current page and a previous page. Id. (citing
Jang, Fig. 8; Tflf 39, 61). The Examiner finds Keohane teaches a system that
determines when a user is reading a displayed content and applies a hard
anchor that will stop the scrolling by the user when a last line of the
displayed content reaches a desired position. Final Act. 8 (citing Keohane,
Figs. 3, 6; 39-41, 46). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes
the combination of Jang and Keohane teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations because:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
modify Jang with the teachings of Keohane, because to do so
improves the electronic book reader of Jang with the content
reader of Keohane by using [a] known method of providing a
stopping point that automatically stops the scrolling when the last
line of the previously read text is located [at] a specific position
so that the user won’t overshoot and hav[e] to scroll back to find
the last line of the previously read text as suggested by Keohane,
and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
Final Act. 8 (citing Keohane ^fl[ 10—11) (internal citation omitted).
Appellants’ arguments do not address the combined teachings of the
references. Instead, Appellants attack the references singly for lacking
teachings that the Examiner relied on a combination of references to show.
Appellants’ arguments amount to allegations that the claimed invention must
be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, rather than
5
Appeal 2017-007526
Application 14/465,576
disputing what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. However,
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (citations omitted). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Jang and
Keohane teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1; and claims 3—7, which are not separately argued with
particularity. See App. Br. 7—8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3—7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6