Ex Parte Miyazawa et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201712971347 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2017) 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. 1946-0100 7763 EXAMINER KARIMI, PEGEMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/971,347 12/17/2010 142241 7590 02/24/2017 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Yusuke MIYAZAWA 02/24/2017 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 YUSUKE MIYAZAWA, FUMINORI HOMMA, JUNICHIRO SAKATA, and TATSUSHINASHIDA Appeal 2016-001709 Application 12/971,3471 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—9, and 11—14. Claims 2 and 10 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal 2016-001709 Application 12/971,347 THE INVENTION Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to controlling the display of a display screen by detecting proximity of an operating body, such as a user’s hand, to the display screen. (Abstract; Spec. Fig. 4.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An information processing apparatus comprising: a detection section configured to detect an operating body in proximity to a display screen; a specification section configured to specify a range of the display screen where the operating body detected by the detection section is in proximity; an identification section configured to identify whether the operating body detected by the detection section is in proximity to a selection item included in the display screen; and a display control section configured to temporarily superimpose and display a region including selection item content of the selection item over a previously displayed display region when the identification section identifies the operating body as being in proximity to the selection item and configured to end a display of the region including the selection item content of the selection item when the detection section no longer detects the operating body as being in proximity to the display screen, wherein the identification section identifies whether the range specified by the specification section includes the selection item, wherein the specification section specifies the range of the display screen by designating, as the range, all areas of the display screen where one or more portions of the operating body are within a proximity distance from the display screen, and 2 Appeal 2016-001709 Application 12/971,347 wherein at least one of the detection section, the specification section, the identification section, and the display control section is implemented via a processor. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3—9, and 11—14 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. (Final Act. 2—5.) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4—9, and 11—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2009/0244023 Al, pub. Oct. 1, 2009). (Final Act. 6-16.) The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Goto (US 2005/0200611 Al, pub. Sept. 15, 2005). (Final Act. 16-17.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issues:2 First Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding claims 1, 3—9, and 11— 14 fail to comply with the written description requirement. (App. Br. 12- 13.) Second Issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Kim discloses the independent claim 1 limitation: 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 16, 2015); the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 23, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed Sept. 16, 2014); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sept. 23, 2015) for the respective details. 3 Appeal 2016-001709 Application 12/971,347 a specification section configured to specify a range of the display screen where the operating body detected by the detection section is in proximity .... wherein the specification section specifies the range of the display screen by designating, as the range, all areas of the display screen where one or more portions of the operating body are within a proximity distance from the display screen .... . . . and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 8 and 9. (App. Br. 13-15.) ANALYSIS First Issue The Examiner finds the phrase, “all areas of the display screen,” in the claims is “not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor ... at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.” (Final Act. 3.) Appellants cite the following disclosure in the Specification as support for this phrase: [A]s shown in Fig. 4, a proximity detection region 311 refers to a region in which the change in the capacitance of the touch panel is greater than a predetermined value when the operating body is in proximity. The proximity detection region 311 is also referred to below as the proximity area^ (Spec. p. 13,11. 17—22; App. Br. 12.) Appellants argue the “proximity area” of the above quotation is the claimed “all areas of the display screen where one or more portions of the operating body are within a proximity distance from the display screen.” (App. Br. 12.) We find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The Examiner’s rejection considers less pertinent portions of the Specification that refer to areas of the screen upon which “selection item content” is “temporarily superimposed” 4 Appeal 2016-001709 Application 12/971,347 per the fourth element of claim 1, for example. (Final Act. 3—A\ Ans. 19— 20.) However, the portions of the Specification on which Appellants rely provide adequate support for the claim limitation at issue. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—9, and 11—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Second Issue For the limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Kim of a “selection marker” that appears on an area of the display when the user’s finger comes into close proximity with that area. (Final Act. 6, 8; Kim Fig. 7c, 1149.) The Examiner bases the rejection on an interpretation of the term “range” in the claims as “the operation body being within a certain distance from the display screen.” (Ans. 24; see also Final Act. 8: “a certain distance between the fmger/object and the touch screen.”) The Examiner further considers the selection marker as itself comprising the claimed “specification section,” which carries out the requirement of “specifying] a range of the display screen where the operating body detected by the detection section is in proximity” by virtue of it “displaying an oval” on the screen. (Final Act. 8; Ans. 21.) Appellants argue the Examiner errs by interpreting “range” as distance from the display screen. (App. Br. 13.) Rather, Appellants argue, as explicitly stated in the claims, the range is “all areas of the display screen where one or more portions of the operating body are within a proximity distance from the display screen.” (Id.) As discussed above, this interpretation is supported by the Specification. 5 Appeal 2016-001709 Application 12/971,347 Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. When the independent claims are considered as a whole, the Examiner’s construction of range is untenable. The “range” referred to in the claims is an area of the screen, not a distance from the screen. Moreover, as Appellants point out, the selection marker of Kim cannot define the required range because it is merely a fixed icon, and therefore does not designate all areas of the display screen where the user’s finger is within a proximity distance from the screen. (Ans. 13— 14.) Stated differently, “the selection marker ... is a fixed-shape icon that is only being displayed to encircle the approached displayed icon when the finger . . . has entered within a certain proximity distance from the touch screen . . . .” (Ans. 14.) Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, and 9 as anticipated. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 9. We also do not sustain the anticipation rejections of claims 4—7 and 11—14, which claims are dependent from claim 1. For the obviousness rejection of claim 3, the Examiner relies on the above discussed anticipation by Kim for the claim 1 limitations upon which claim 3 depends, and relies on the combination of Kim with Goto only for the additional claim limitation of claim 3. (Final Act. 16—17.) Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection for the same reasons as discussed above. 6 Appeal 2016-001709 Application 12/971,347 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—9, and 11—14. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation