Ex Parte Miyazaki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13183316 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

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.
1946-0071 8086
EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/183,316 07/14/2011
142241 7590 02/21/2017
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
Reiko MIYAZAKI
02/21/2017 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 REIKO MIYAZAKI
Appeal 2016-005 5231
Application 13/183,316
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005523
Application 13/183,316
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 6—13, which are all pending
claims. Appeal Br. 5. Claims 2—5 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to “an information processing
apparatus.” Abstract. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with
emphasis added to the disputed elements:
1. An information processing apparatus, comprising:
an operation section configured to allow an operation
input by a dragging touch operation; and
a control section configured to execute one of a plurality
of processes in response to the dragging touch operation,
wherein:
a selection of one of the plurality ofprocesses is based on
a triggering touch event at the beginning of the dragging touch
operation,
the triggering touch event is a continuous part of the
dragging touch operation,
the triggering touch event is responsive to a plurality of
distinguishable user touch inputs,
each of the plurality of distinguishable user touch inputs is
associated with one of the plurality of processes executed in
response to the dragging touch operation,
2
Appeal 2016-005523
Application 13/183,316
a portion of the dragging touch operation that is performed
after the triggering touch event comprises a user input variable
associated with the selected process of the plurality of processes,
the triggering touch event is an operation of continuing to
touch an arbitrary position of a screen of a display section for
more than a predetermined period of time,
the dragging touch operation is carried out when an image
is displayed on a display screen,
the selected process is a zooming function performed on
the displayed image,
the user input variable is an extent of the zooming function
performed on the displayed image based on the portion of the
dragging touch operation that is performed after the triggering
touch event, and
said control section is configured to execute the zooming
function around a center provided by the position touched at
the triggering touch event.
Appeal Br. 18—19 (Claims App.).
B. The Rejections on Anneal
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 6—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shin (US 2007/0273666 Al; Nov. 29, 2007), in view of
Cho (US 2010/0251152 Al; Sept. 30, 2010). Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the combination of Shin and Cho fails to teach or
suggest “a selection of one of the plurality of processes is based on a
triggering touch event at the beginning of the dragging touch operation, the
trigging touch event is a continuous part of the dragging touch operation,”
3
Appeal 2016-005523
Application 13/183,316
and a zooming function is executed “around a center provided by the
position touched at the triggering touch event,” as recited in independent
claims 1,10, and 11. See Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 4. Specifically,
Appellant argues Cho discloses two separate touch operations, but not a
“single gesture that is a continuous gesture having the triggering touch event
at its beginning.” See Appeal Br. 14—15; see also Reply Br. 4—5. Appellant
further argues that Cho’s disclosure does not provide support for a zooming
function that is executed “around a center provided by the position touched
at the triggering touch event.” See Appeal Br. 15.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner the claim limitation “the triggering touch event is a continuous
part of the dragging touch operation,” does not require the triggering touch
event and dragging touch operation to comprise a single, continuous gesture
beginning with a triggering touch event. See Ans. 5—6. We further agree
with the Examiner that the plain language of the limitation “a selection of
one of the plurality of processes is based on a triggering touch event at the
beginning of the dragging touch operation, the trigger touch event is a
continuous part of the dragging touch operation,” encompasses Cho’s
teaching of a user touching and selecting a zoom item on a main display and,
while still touching the zoom item, performing a rotary touch and drag on a
displayed touch wheel. See Cho Tflf 100-102; Figs. 6B, 6C. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that Cho teaches “a selection of one of the plurality of
processes is based on a triggering touch event at the beginning of the
dragging touch operation, the trigger touch event is a continuous part of the
dragging touch operation,” as recited in claims 1,10, and 11. See Ans. 2—6.
4
Appeal 2016-005523
Application 13/183,316
Cho also teaches that the user selects a photo displayed on the main
display by touching the photo, where the selected photo is subsequently
displayed by itself within the main display. See Cho 1103; Figs. 6D, 6E.
Cho further teaches that the user performs a rotary touch and drag on the
touch wheel, and that the main display subsequently zooms in or out on the
selected photo. See Cho 1103; Fig. 6F. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Cho teaches “said control section is configured to execute the zooming
function around a center provided by the position touched at the triggering
touch event,” as recited in claims 1,10, and 11. See Ans. 4—5.
We further agree with the Examiner that modifying the touch screen
device taught by Shin to include the aforementioned features taught by Cho
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention because including those features would improve interaction on
Shin’s touch screen device. See Final Act. 8. It is of no consequence that
Cho discloses the aforementioned features in separate depictions of the main
display (see Cho Figs. 6A, 6B, 6D, 6E), as Cho’s separate depictions do not
undermine combining the disclosed features into the single touch screen
device taught by Shin. See Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554
F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Combining two embodiments disclosed
adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of
inventiveness.”).
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of the cited references teaches or suggests all the claim
elements of independent claims 1,10, and 11. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 11 under
5
Appeal 2016-005523
Application 13/183,316
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We further sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6—
9, 12, and 13, not argued separately. See App. Br. 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6—13 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