Ex Parte MANDAI et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 31, 201914294322 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/294,322 06/03/2014 72119 7590 06/04/2019 MARK D. SARALINO (SHARP) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE 19THFLOOR CLEVELAND, OH 44115 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hidenobu MANDA! 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. KOMOP0216US 7843 EXAMINER CHEN, HUO LONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2019 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): ipdocket@rennerotto.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIDENOBU MANDA!, YOSHITAKA OKAHASHI, and SHUICHI MOCHIZUKI Appeal2017-008874 Application 14/294,322 1 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's non- final rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants' Brief ("Br.") identifies Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Sharp Corporation) as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal2017-008874 Application 14/294,322 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an image forming apparatus, for example, a photocopier, which includes both a position-adjustable control panel and a position-adjustable display. Spec. Abstract, Fig. 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An image forming apparatus comprising: a housing with a top face; an input operating device arranged on the top face of the housing and configured so that a position of an input operating portion can be changed; wherein the input operating device remains operable by an operator in association with the image forming apparatus forming an image at a changed position of the input operating device; a display device, wherein the image forming apparatus remains operable by an operator in association with the image forming apparatus forming an image at a changed position of the display device; and a support structure supporting the display device at a position higher than the top face of the housing and changing a position of the display device. Br. 21 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Gauronski US 5,164,842 Nov. 17, 1992 Sato US 2003/0218785 Al Nov. 27, 2003 Ogasawara US 8,391,740 B2 Mar. 5, 2013 DGTec Wireless Keyboard and Mouse Combo, listing for sale on ebay.com, retrieved from archive.org (archived Dec. 2012) ("DGTec"). 2 Appeal2017-008874 Application 14/294,322 REJECTIONS Claims 1-12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gauronski, Sato, and Ogasawara. Non-Final Act. 2-14. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gauronski, Sato, Ogasawara, and DGTec. Non-Final Act. 15. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in determining that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Gauronski, Sato, and Ogasawara to arrive at the invention recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner's Findings and Conclusion of Obviousness In rejecting claim 1 under§ 103, the Examiner finds that Gauronski teaches an image forming apparatus (a photocopier) having a housing with a top face, and with an input operating device (keyboard 64) arranged on the top face, and a display device (display 62). Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Gauronski Fig. 1 ). The Examiner finds Gauronski deficient in that it does not teach a position-adjustable input operating device or display. Non-Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds, however, that Sato teaches a position adjustable input device that remains operable at a changed position. Non- Final Act. 4 ( citing Sato Fig. 15, item 1 O; ,r 59). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Gauronski to include Sato's position- adjustable keyboard, finding that doing so would "allow an operator to 3 Appeal2017-008874 Application 14/294,322 adjust the keyboard in [a] comfortable position to use ... for inputting information." Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner acknowledges that Gauronski and Sato do not teach "wherein the image forming apparatus remains operable by an operator in association with the image forming apparatus forming an image at a changed position of the display device" and "a support structure supporting the display device at a position higher than the top face of the housing and changing a position of the display device." Non-Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner turns to Ogasawara, finding that it teaches these limitations. Non- Final Act. 5 (citing Ogasawara Figs. 3, 7-11). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the device of Gauronski and Sato with the top-mounted, position-adjustable display of Ogasawara, finding that a skilled artisan would have done so, because it would "allow the display of the image forming apparatus to present the information to an operator more effective since the operator is able to adjust the display in a position which is more comfortable to read the information on display." Non-Final Act. 5. Appellants' Contentions Appellants advance several arguments for patentability, which we address below. First, Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Gauronski to include adjustable input devices or displays as taught by Sato and Ogasawara. Br. 11-12. More specifically, Appellants contend Gauronski does not mention the need for position-adjustable input or display devices, and that it provides no suggestion or motivation to change its non-adjustable configuration. Br. 12. Appellants further argue that an ordinarily skilled artisan "would not, in view of Gauronski, be 4 Appeal2017-008874 Application 14/294,322 confident that adopting such configuration would not detrimentally affect the operability [of various aspects of the Gauronski device]." Br. 12. Appellants further argue combining Gauronski and Sato would not result in a device "having the input operating device features as recited in claim 1." Br. 13 ( emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellants argue that Sato teaches an integrated input and display device, and to take a teaching from Sato other than for both the operating and display aspects to be on the same operation unit would defeat the express intent of the operation unit to have "an operation/display screen for directing operation of the image processing unit and displaying the processing state of the image processing unit." Br. 14 ( citing Sato, claim 1 ). Appellants further contend that the integrated input and display of Sato is designed to allow for a wheelchair-bound user to access the device, and that the separating the input device from the display, as proposed by the Examiner, "would present increased difficulties." Br. 15. Still further, Appellants argue that adding Ogasawara' s teachings to Gauronski and Sato would not have led to the invention of claim 1 because Ogasawara does not describe "changing orientation of the display device 2 during image forming operation," and that modifying Gauronski with Ogasawara would lead only to a position-adjustable display that could be used for maintenance work. Br. 1 7. Appellants also contend the teachings of Ogasawara conflict with those of Sato because Ogasawara teaches positioning the display above the device, and Sato is intended for use by persons having decreased mobility. Br. 17-18. According to Appellants, a person having decreased mobility would have difficulty accessing the top-mounted display as taught by Ogasawara. Br. 18. Finally, Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill in 5 Appeal2017-008874 Application 14/294,322 the art would have not modified Gauronski's CRT display, as taught by Ogasawara, because its significant weight makes it unstable and risks damage. Br. 18-19. Our Review We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Non- Final Act. 2-15) and (2) the findings, reasons, and explanations set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Brief (Ans. 4--10) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. As noted above, Appellants' first argument asserts that the modification of the Gauronski with Sato and Ogasawara is improper because Gauronski does not mention the need for position-adjustable input or display devices. This argument is not persuasive because it appears to be based on an incorrect assumption that a suggestion or motivation to combine must be explicitly set forth in the reference being modified. This assumption is not consistent with the Supreme Court's approach to obviousness, which makes clear that the standard for determining whether a claim is obvious is "an expansive and flexible approach." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,415 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143(G) ("The courts have made clear that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test is flexible and an explicit suggestion to combine the prior art is not necessary."). Appellants' second argument, that combining only the input function of Sato' s integrated input and display device would be contrary to its 6 Appeal2017-008874 Application 14/294,322 purpose of providing easy access to a wheelchair-bound user (Br. 13-15), is also not persuasive. As an initial matter, the Examiner proposes modifying Gauronski's input device to include Sato's position-adjustable input device. Gauronski's photocopier is not designed to provide access to wheelchair- bound users. Thus, a skilled artisan would not be discouraged from utilizing the input functionality of Sato's position-adjustable, integrated display and input device, as it would not negatively impact Gauronski' s intended functionality. Moreover, as the Examiner explained, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated that incorporating Sato's position-adjustable input device would be beneficial because it would "allow an operator to adjust the keyboard in comfortable position to use the keyboard for inputting information." Non-Final Act. 4. Appellants do not persuasively explain why this rationale is insufficient. Appellants' contention that Ogasawara does not describe "changing orientation of the display device 2 during image forming operation," and that modifying Gauronski with Ogasawara would lead only to a position- adjustable display that could be used for maintenance work (Br. 16-17) is also unpersuasive. The claim does not require that the orientation of the display device be moved during image forming operation as Appellants allege. Rather, the language of claim 1 recites "wherein the image forming apparatus remains operable by an operator in association with the image forming apparatus forming an image at a changed position of the display device." Br. 21 (Claims Appendix). Thus, the language of the claim merely requires that image forming apparatus be able to make copies after the display has been adjusted to a different position. Moreover, we do not agree that the Examiner's proposed modification would result in a position- 7 Appeal2017-008874 Application 14/294,322 adjustable display that could be used only for maintenance work. The Examiner's proposed modification merely incorporates the structure of Ogasawara ( shown in Fig. 7, for example) into Gauronski to allow the display to be position-adjustable. Appellants' argument that the teachings of Ogasawara conflict with those of Sato because Ogasawara teaches positioning the display above the device, and Sato is intended for use by persons having decreased mobility, is likewise unpersuasive. Br. 18. Each of these references are separately relied upon to modify the teachings of Gauronski. The Examiner relies on Sato only to show that it was known in the art to use position-adjustable input devices in photocopying machines. The fact that Sato does so in order to benefit persons having decreased mobility does not preclude a skilled artisan from incorporating these teachings for other reasons. As such, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed Sato as teaching away from the claimed configuration. Finally, Appellants' argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have not modified Gauronski' s CRT display as taught by Ogasawara is also unpersuasive. Appellants assert that mounting Gauronski' s CRT on an adjustable arm as taught by Ogasawara would be unstable. We disagree because Ogasawara teaches that a flat panel display can be used in connection with a photocopying device. As such, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced the heavy CRT display with a lighter flat panel display as taught by Ogasawara. 8 Appeal2017-008874 Application 14/294,322 Summary Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's determination that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the prior art. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of any other claim. Accordingly, the remaining claims fall for the same reasons. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation