Ex Parte MatsubaraDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201612984944 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/984,944 01/05/2011 Yasushi MATSUBARA SJP-723-2972 3301 27562 7590 12/27/2016 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER WONG, WILLIAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YASUSHI MATSUBARA Appeal 2016-003499 Application 12/984,944 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—21, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-003499 Application 12/984,944 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to a “display control process conducted when displaying display-contents such as a selection object that is to be selected by a user and a content that is to be browsed by a user” and “a process conducted when scrolling the selection object and content” (Spec. ID- Independent claims 1 and 20, reproduced below, are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a display control program executed by a computer of a display control apparatus which displays, on a display device, a selection object selected in accordance with an operation by a user, the display control program causing the computer to perform functionality comprising: moving, relative to a display area of the display device, a plurality of selection objects having at least one part thereof displayed on the display area, based on an output signal outputted from an input device; displaying, on the display area, an object that is different from the moved plurality of selection objects, when, among the plurality of moved selection objects, an end-located selection object reaches a predetermined position of the display area; and moving, relative to the display area, the displayed object, based on an output signal outputted from the input device and displaying the object so as to emerge from an end of the display area and extend over a portion of an area comprising the plurality of moved selection objects. 20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a display control program executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus, the display control program causing the computer to perform functionality comprising: displaying, on a display, a plurality of icons that are selectable using, at least, an input device; 2 Appeal 2016-003499 Application 12/984,944 moving, in response to input made by the input device, the plurality of icons in a direction associated with movement of the input device; stopping movement of the plurality of icons when an end icon of the plurality of icons has reached a specified position; and displaying an end-of-contents marker so as to emerge from a side of the display and extend over one or more of the plurality of icons when the end icon has reached the specified position, the end-of-contents marker extending over at least the end icon as the end-of-contents marker emerges from the side of the display. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS1 The Examiner rejected claims 1,3,4, and 11—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kwak (US 2009/0070711 Al; Mar. 12, 2009). The Examiner rejected claims 1,3,4, and 11—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kwak, Obata (US 5,726,669; Mar. 10, 1998), and/or Tseng (US 2009/0249247 Al; Oct. 1, 2009). The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kwak and Ording (US 2009/0077488 Al; Mar. 19, 2009), or in the alternative based upon the teachings of Kwak, Obata, Tseng, and Ording. 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 12, 14) and the rejection of claims 1 and 13—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ludolph (US 5,657,049; Aug. 12, 1997) (Ans. 16). In addition, objections to claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 13—15, and 17—21 (see Final Act. 2—3) were withdrawn in the Advisory Action mailed June 2, 2015. 3 Appeal 2016-003499 Application 12/984,944 The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kwak and Tseng, or in the alternative based upon the teachings of Kwak, Obata, and Tseng. The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kwak, Tseng, and SanGiovanni (US 2010/0251153 Al; Sept. 30, 2010), or in the alternative based upon the teachings of Kwak, Obata, Tseng, and SanGiovanni. ANALYSIS Claims 1—19 Appellant asserts Kwak does not anticipate claims 1 and 13—17 because the Examiner erred in finding Kwak discloses displaying ... an object that is different from the moved plurality of selection objects, when ... an end-located selection object reaches a predetermined position of the display area; . . . and displaying the object so as to emerge from an end of the display area and extend over a portion of an area comprising the plurality of moved selection objects, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 18—19; Reply Br. 2—5). Appellant contends the motion graphic image/wavy bar in Kwak’s Figure 12 is not a displayed object as claimed because “the wavy bar does not emerge from the end of the display area, nor does the wavy bar extend over a portion of the selectable objects” (App. Br. 17 (citing Kwak Fig. 12)). The Examiner finds, however, Kwak’s motion graphic image in Figure 12 is an object that emerges from an end of a display area containing items 3—7 because the motion graphic image “oscillat[es] up and down from the bottom of Item 7, which is the end of the display area” (Ans. 14—15 4 Appeal 2016-003499 Application 12/984,944 (citing KwakFig. 12, || 13, 153, 161)). We agree. Kwak’s Figure 12 and paragraph 161 disclose the motion graphic image emerges from an end of a display area containing item 7, at a “boundary contiguous with the last item [item 7] at the lower portion of the screen . . . [the] motion graphic image . . . graphically depicting or simulating a reaction or collision with the selected bar” (see Kwak 1161). Thus, Kwak teaches displaying an object so as to emerge from an end of the display area, as claimed. The Examiner also finds Kwak’s Figure 12 shows the motion graphic image extending over a portion of an area comprising moved selection objects (items) 3—7 (Ans. 15—16 (citing Kwak Fig. 12; 1163)). We agree. Kwak discloses the motion graphic image is an “impact waveform” oscillating up over a portion of an area comprising selection object/item 7 (see Kwak || 162—163, Fig. 12). This is contrary to Appellant’s argument that “Kwak does not provide any disclosure of the wavy bar [motion graphic image] extending over any of the selection items” (Reply Br. 3 4). Thus, Kwak teaches displaying the object so as to extend over a portion of an area comprising the plurality of moved selection objects, as recited in claim 1. We further note Appellant’s argument that Kwak’s “‘motion graphic image’ does not emerge from an end of the display” (App. Br. 18) is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. The claim does not recite “an end of the displayrather, the claim recites “a display area of the display device” and “an end of the display area” (Ans. 15). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 13—17 argued therewith (App. Br. 16). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—12, 18, and 19, for which no arguments were provided. 5 Appeal 2016-003499 Application 12/984,944 Claim 20 Independent claim 20 recites, inter alia: “displaying an end-of-contents marker so as to emerge from a side of the display and extend over one or more of the plurality of icons when the end icon has reached the specified position, the end-of-contents marker extending over at least the end icon as the end-of-contents marker emerges from the side of the display.” Appellant contends Kwak does not anticipate claim 20 because Kwak’s motion graphic image/wavy bar does not teach an end-of-contents marker emerging from a side of the display, as claimed (App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 5). We agree with Appellant, Kwak’s motion graphic image is inside the display and does not emerge from a display side (App. Br. 21). Thus, Kwak does not anticipate claim 20. However, we agree with the Examiner claim 20 is obvious over Kwak, Tseng, and Obata. The Examiner finds Tseng teaches displaying an object emerging from a side of a display (Ans. 17 (citing Tseng Figs. 2B— 2C, H29, 40-42, 51, 54, 59-61); Final Act. 12). Tseng’s message in a message area bounded by a down-rolling notification/status bar is an object emerging from the display’s top side when a user presses and drags the “status bar 222 . . . shown across the top of the display 220” (see Tseng H 52, 54, 59, Fig. 2C). Appellant’s arguments have not addressed the Examiner’s specific findings directed to Tseng in combination with Kwak. Rather, Appellant asserts “Tseng’s notification bar ... is not generated based on an event related to an end-located selection object reaching a certain area on the display” (App. Br. 22—23). However, the Examiner relies on Kwak as 6 Appeal 2016-003499 Application 12/984,944 disclosing this feature (see Ans. 17 (“Kwak is further related to notifying a user that the end is reached (e.g. paragraph 161)”); Final Act. 11). Additionally, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Kwak’s motion graphic image extending over an end icon (Kwak Figure 12, item 7) with Tseng’s object emerging from a display side teaches and suggests the claimed end-of-contents marker extending over at least the end icon as the end-of-contents marker emerges from the side of the display (Ans. 17—18; Final Act. 12). In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 20 over the combination of Kwak, Obata, and Tseng. Claim 21 Claim 21 depends from claim 20, and further recites “wherein a size of the end-of-contents marker increases when a distance of the end-of- contents marker from the side of the display increases.” Appellant acknowledges implicitly that Kwak does not anticipate claim 21. Rather, Appellant contends neither Kwak nor Tseng teaches or suggests “a size of the end-of-contents marker increases when a distance of the end-of-contents marker from the side of the display increases,” as recited in dependent claim 21 (App. Br. 23—25; Reply Br. 7—8). Appellant asserts Kwak’s waveform size “is proportional to the distance of a user touch operation, and not how far the waveform allegedly emerges from a side of the display” (Reply Br. 7), and Tseng’s message bar is “‘dragged’ down to display one or more messages . . . [and] does not at all reasonably correspond to an end-of-contents marker” (App. Br. 24). 7 Appeal 2016-003499 Application 12/984,944 Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s specific findings that Kwak’s waveform size—proportional to a selection bar speed determined by distance—increases with increasing distance from a side of last selection item 7 (Ans. 18 (citing Kwak Fig. 12,|163); Final Act. 12). Appellant’s arguments also do not address the Examiner’s finding that Tseng’s message area size (bounded by a down-rolling notification bar, see Tseng | 59) increases with increasing distance of the notification bar to the display’s top side, as shown in Tseng’s Figure 2C (Final Act. 12 (citing Tseng || 59-61, Fig. 2C)). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Kwak’s waveform and Tseng’s message area teaches and suggests an end-of-contents marker size increases when the distance from the side of the display increases, as recited in claim 21. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 21. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—21 is affirmed. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation