Ex Parte KubotaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 201611566805 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111566,805 12/05/2006 37013 7590 06/30/2016 Rossi, Kimms & McDowell LLP 20609 Gordon Park Square Suite 150 Ashburn, VA 20147 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tsutomu KUBOTA 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. CAN0-0426 6607 EXAMINER HUNTSINGER, PETER K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2673 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2016 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): mail@rkmllp.com EOfficeAction@rkmllp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TSUTOMU KUBOTA Appeal2015-002162 Application 11/566,805 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1 and 8-19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 3 1 Appellant identifies Canon Kabushiki Kaisha as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Appellant indicates the present appeal does not address claims 8, 9, and 12-19. (See App. Br. 2.) Claims 2-7 were canceled. 3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Dec. 5, 2006 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action mailed Feb. 24, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed Aug. 21, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 1, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 30, 2014 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2015-002162 Application 11/566,805 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a data processing apparatus that can output the same data in a plurality of different output forms according to one operation flow. (Spec. i-f 6.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A data processing apparatus having a plurality of functions, including a plurality of input functions and a plurality of output functions, the data processing apparatus comprising: a display unit configured to display, as an operation screen through which an operation flow is created, a first object indicating a first type flow, a second object indicating a second type flow, a third object indicating a plurality of input functions corresponding to the first type flow, and a fourth object indicating a plurality of output functions corresponding to the second-type flow, wherein the operation screen is a single operation screen on which the first object, the second object, the third object, and the fourth object are displayed, and displayed with the third object as a subset of the first object and the fourth object as a subset of the second object, wherein the display unit displays, directly in response to a reception of a user's initial instruction of creating the operation flow, the single operation screen, including the first object, the second object, the third object, and the fourth object, as an initial screen through which the user creates the operation flows, and wherein the display unit displays the single operation screen on which the user can confirm an operation order of the first object and the second object; a creating unit configured to create at least one operation flow, each including the first type flow corresponding to any one of the plurality of input functions and the second type flow corresponding to any one of the plurality of output functions, based on input operation to the operation screen by a user; a registering unit configured to register the at least one operation flow created by the creating unit; 2 Appeal2015-002162 Application 11/566,805 a selecting unit configured to select one operation flow designated by the user from among the at least one operation flow registered by the registering unit; and a data processing unit configured to execute a data processing corresponding to any one of the plurality of input functions and any one of the plurality of output functions according to the one operating flow selected by the selecting unit. REJECTION Claims 1 and 8-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Twede (US 2003/0103232 Al; pub. June 5, 2003), McLaughlin (US 5,630,079; iss. May 13, 1997), and Potter (US 7,373,356 B2; iss. May 13, 2008). (Final Act. 2-8.) APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS 1. Appellant contends the combination of Twede, McLaughlin, and Potter does not teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 11 because the initial screens of the references do not display both the input and output functions in a single operation screen. (App. Br. 5.) 2. Appellant further contends Twede does not teach displaying a single operation screen with "the third object as a subset of the first object and the fourth object as a subset of a second object," the objects displayed "directly in response to a reception of a user's initial instruction of creating the operation flow ... as an initial screen through which the user creates the operation flows." (App. Br. 5-6). Appellant contends Twede's initial screen is a blank workspace, and the workflow screen cited by the Examiner is created from the initial screen as a result of a user manipulating the workflow generator, after a user's initial instruction of creating the operation 3 Appeal2015-002162 Application 11/566,805 flow. (Id.) Appellant further argues that Twede's toolkit portion of the workflow generator lacks icons for the first and second objects. (Id.) 3. Appellant contends Twede does not teach "a third object indicating a plurality of input functions corresponding to the first type flow, and a fourth object indicating a plurality of output functions corresponding to the second-type flow," as recited in claims 1, 10, and 11. (Reply Br. 2.) Specifically, Appellant argues Twede's "SCAN" and "EMAIL RECEIVE" icons reflect the input and output functions, but are not provided with any flow identity, thus Twede does not display any corresponding first and second objects that indicate the type of flows. (Id.) 4. Appellant contends McLaughlin does not teach displaying "a first object indicating a first type flow" and "a third object indicating plurality of input functions corresponding to first type flow," the objects displayed "as an initial screen," as recited in claims 1, 10, and 11. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3.) Specifically, Appellant argues McLaughlin's initial screen displays only the document source button (i.e., the first object), but the associated input functions (i.e., the third object) are not displayed until after the initial screen, when the user has manipulated the document source button to display the pull down menu. (Id.) 5. Appellant contends Potter does not disclose the claimed single operation screen that displays the first, second, third, and fourth objects as an initial screen, as required in claims 1, 10, and 11. (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3--4.) Appellant argues Potter's initial screen contains no icons, and would require three drag operations to display the three icons as cited by the Examiner. (Id.) Appellant further contends that Potter's icons are not associated with different flow types or subsets. (Id.) 4 Appeal2015-002162 Application 11/566,805 6. Appellant contends the combination of Twede and Potter is improper, as Potter teaches a computer for operating a transducer database and Twede relates to data formation and transmission in a printing device. (App. Br. 8.) Because the prior art references allegedly lack a nexus to each other, Appellant contends one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Potter's database to improve Twede's printing apparatus. (Id.) 7. Appellant contends the combination of Twede and McLaughlin is not tenable, because the references use different ways of displaying input/output dialogs. (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4.) Appellant contends one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to replace Twede' s drag-and-drop icons with McLaughlin's pull down menu because a user would not be able to display workflow icons in the workspace screen as intended by Twede. (Id.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 4--8; Reply Br. 2--4) that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant's above contentions 1-7. We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-8) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-7) in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 5 Appeal2015-002162 Application 11/566,805 Independent Claims 1, 10, and 11 Regarding Appellant's contentions 1 and 2, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection because Appellant is essentially attacking each of the Twede, McLaughlin, and Potter references individually. "Non- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Appellant argues Twede' s initial screen is blank until a user manipulates the workflow generator to add objects, and argues Twede's first and second objects lack icons, however the Examiner relied upon Potter to teach an initial template screen that includes first and second "header" object icons that can have a subset of objects under them. (Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 4---6 (citing Potter col. 12, 11. 16-58, various templates of empty icon configurations as initial screens).) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Twede and Potter teaches a data processing apparatus having an operation screen that displays first and second objects as an initial screen. (Id.) As to Appellant's contention 3, we disagree with Appellant's assertion that Twede's objects do not indicate flow type. The broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellant's disclosure, of "indicating a flow type" does not preclude the object from representing or reflecting the type of flow. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding the Examiner is to construe claim language in the broadest reasonable manner). Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Twede's workflow objects 6 Appeal2015-002162 Application 11/566,805 "SCAN" and "EMAIL REC El VE" represent or indicate an input flow type, and "STORE" and "PRINT" represent an output flow type. (Ans. 2-3.) Appellant's contention 4 that McLaughlin's third object is not displayed until after an initial screen when a user selects the pull down menu is not persuasive of Examiner error. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... 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 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that McLaughlin teaches the concept of organizing a subset of options under an object heading, which allows for a clear indication of which options are available for a particular object. (Ans. 4 (citing McLaughlin col. 7, 11. 1-26).) Thus, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that combining the concept of subset menu options with the initial screen objects of Twede and Potter would have resulted in an initial screen that displayed a third object (i.e., input options) as a subset of the first object (i.e., input heading) and the fourth object (i.e., output options) as a subset of a second object (i.e., output heading). (Ans. 2--4; see also McLaughlin Fig. 12 and col. 8, 11. 20-31, document input sources and document output destinations are each shown with a subset of options on a single initial screen.) As to Appellant's contention 5, we do not agree with Appellant's argument that Potter's initial screen contains no icons. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Potter teaches an initial template screen that includes at least first and second "header" object icons that can have a subset of objects under them. (Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 4---6 (citing Potter col. 12, 11. 7 Appeal2015-002162 Application 11/566,805 16-58, various templates of empty icon configurations as initial screens; object icons on the initial template include "Add Measurements" and "Add Hardware).) Further, we are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's contention that Potter's icons are not associated with different flow types or subsets, because the Examiner relied upon Twede and McLaughlin to teach the claimed flow types, as discussed supra. Appellant's contention 6 that Twede's printing apparatus and Potter's computer database lack a nexus to each other is not persuasive of Examiner error in the rejection. If two references are not within the same field of endeavor, they are nonetheless considered analogous art if they are still reasonably pertinent to solving the same problem. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We agree with the Examiner's finding that both Twede and Potter are related to solving problems related to the design of user interfaces for programming computer operations (Ans. 6), and thus we are not persuaded that the combination of Twede and Potter is improper. As to Appellant's contention 7, we do not agree with Appellant's argument that combining McLaughlin with Twede would render Twede unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As discussed with respect to Appellant's contention 4 supra, the combination of Twede and McLaughlin does not require bodily incorporation of McLaughlin's pull down menu into Twede's workflow generator. Rather, the Examiner combines the concept of displaying a submenu of options, as taught by McLaughlin, with Twede' s interface. (Ans. 4.) Further, McLaughlin teaches other menu configurations for displaying submenu options in addition to a pull down menu, such as displaying document input sources and output destinations, each with a subset of respective options, on a single initial screen. (See McLaughlin Fig. 8 Appeal2015-002162 Application 11/566,805 12 and col. 8, 11. 20-31.) Therefore, we are not persuaded that the combination of Twede and McLaughlin is improper. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Twede, McLaughlin, and Potter. Remaining Claims Appellant presents no argument against the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 9, and 12-19. (App. Br. 2.) Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner's rejection of those claims. (See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).) DECISION We affirm the Examiner's Decision to reject claims 1 and 8-19 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation