Ex Parte Miyazawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

13028595 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/028,595 02/16/2011
60803 7590
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
09/22/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yusuke MIY AZA WA
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.
1946-0095 9088
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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 MIY AZA WA, IKUO Y AMANO, and
FUMINORI HOMMA 1
Appeal2015-006551
Application 13/028,595
Technology Center 2600
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2015-006551
Application 13/028,595
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to an information processing
device "capable of reducing a user manipulation load by actively using a
change of an input state due to operation of a manipulating body." Spec.
i-f 5. In a disclosed embodiment, a judgment is made as to whether the
manipulating body is in an input state or a standby state. Spec. i-f 7. For
example, according to the Specification, if a user's finger is in contact with
(or located within a proximity detection area) of a touch screen, the device is
in an input state; if a user's finger is not in contact with the surface of a
touch screen, the device is in a standby state. Spec. i-f 27; Fig. 1.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. An information processing device comprising text input
processing circuitry configured to:
detect a state of a user's manipulating body in a
manipulation area, wherein the manipulation area comprises at
least one of a touch input area on a text input screen or a
proximity input area over the text input screen;
determine whether the user's manipulating body is in a
text input state or a text standby state based on at least one of
position or presence in the manipulation area, wherein:
the text input state allows for execution of at least
one user text input process based on at least one of position,
movement, or presence of the user's manipulating body in the
manipulation area, and
the text standby state represents a disengagement of
active input of the user's manipulating body in the manipulation
area; and
2
Appeal2015-006551
Application 13/028,595
determine a process to be executed from a plurality of text
input processes based on the user's manipulating body
transitioning from the text input state to the text standby state.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 12-172 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2009/0251423 Al; Oct. 8,
2009) and Kushler et al. (US 7, 098,896 B2; Aug. 29, 2006) ("Kushler").
Final Act. 2-7.
2. Claims 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jung, Kushler, and Seo et al. (US 8,482,532 B2; July 9,
2013) ("Seo"). Final Act. 8-9.
3. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jung, Kushler, and Nagasaka et al. (US 7,292,228
B2; Nov. 6, 2007) ("Nagasaka"). Final Act. 9-10.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Jung and Kushler
teaches or suggests "a process to be executed from a plurality of text input
2 We note that in the Final Office Action, the heading for the rejection
related to these claims identifies claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12, and 13. Final Act. 2.
However, the Examiner has included (albeit with what appears to be
typographical errors referencing claims 15 and 16) rejections for claims 1, 2,
6-9, and 12-17. See Final Act. 2-7. Additionally, we note Appellants do
not appear to have been prejudiced by these typographical errors and have
identified correctly that claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 12-17 were rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung and Kushler. App. Br. 5.
Thus, we determine such typographical errors to be harmless.
3
Appeal2015-006551
Application 13/028,595
processes based on the user's manipulating body transitioning from the text
input state to the text standby state," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS3
Claims 1, 2, 6--9, and 12-17
Appellants contend that Kushler, as relied upon by the Examiner, fails
to teach or suggest "a process to be executed from a plurality of text input
processes based on the user's manipulating body transitioning from the text
input state to the text standby state," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12;
Reply Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellants assert Kushler fails to disclose a
text standby state and, accordingly, there is no transition between a text
input state and a text standby state. App. Br. 12-13. Additionally,
Appellants contend the Examiner unreasonably interprets the claimed text
standby state as being taught by the state when contact with the touch screen
in Kushler has ended (i.e., Kushler's "breaking contact"). App. Br. 13-15.
Kushler is directed to word-based text input using continuous contact
with a touch sensitive screen. Kushler, Abstract. Kushler teaches that a user
may input a word using one continuous motion in contacting the screen.
Kushler, col. 6, 11. 40-42. Kushler further teaches the user is presented with
a list of matching words or may "request the system to display further
potentially matching words if the desired word does not appear in the list."
Kushler, col. 6, 11. 51-53. Additionally, as identified by the Examiner (see
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
November 20, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed June 18, 2015
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on April 21, 2015 ("Ans.");
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed on May 21, 2014, from
which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2015-006551
Application 13/028,595
Final Act. 3 ), Kushler states: "The user enters a word by contacting the
screen and tracing out a continuous pattern that passes through or near each
letter of the word in sequence, and breaking contact with the screen when
the last letter of the word is reached." Kushler, col. 7, 11. 35-38.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the tracing of a continuous pattern,
as taught in Kushler corresponds to the claimed text input state. Final
Act. 3; Adv. Act. 1 (mailed July 28, 2014); Ans. 11. Additionally, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, the state when the user has broken contact
with the surface of the touch screen, as taught by Kushler, corresponds to the
claimed text standby state.
"[T]he PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim
language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification."
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F. 3d 1359, 1364 quoting In re Bass,
314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Contrary to Appellants' contentions, we do not find the Examiner's
determination that the claimed text standby state encompasses the state when
a user breaks contact with the touch screen surface, as described in Kushler
is erroneous. As stated in Appellants' Specification, the state judgment unit
"may judge that the manipulating body is in the standby state when the
manipulating body is separated from the manipulation surface." Spec. i-f 16.
In other words, Appellants' state judgment unit would judge (determine) that
the manipulating body is in the standby state (i.e., text standby state) when
the manipulating body breaks contact from the touch screen surface. Thus,
we find the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed text standby state is
reasonable and consistent with the Specification.
5
Appeal2015-006551
Application 13/028,595
Additionally, Appellants belatedly argue for the first time in the Reply
Brief that "Kushler still does not teach or fairly suggest to 'determine a
process to be executed from a plurality of text input processes based on the
user's manipulating body transitioning from the text input state to the text
standby state."' Reply Br. 4. Rather, Appellants assert that after the user
breaks contact with the touch screen, Kushler stops the generation of any
input signals and the only process executed by Kushler occurs when an input
signal is being generated (i.e., the user is in contact with the surface). Reply
Br. 4--5
This argument was not made in the Appeal Brief, but could have been,
and is not responsive to any new evidence set forth by the Examiner in the
Answer. In the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, this
argument is untimely and deemed waived. "Any argument raised in the
reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to
an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new
ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal, unless good cause is shown." 37 CPR 41.41(b)(2) (2012);
see also Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010)
(informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence not presented timely
in the principal brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief,
absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have
been presented in the principal brief); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
14 73, 14 7 4 (BP AI 2010) (informative) ("[T]he reply brief [is not] an
opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal
brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.").
6
Appeal2015-006551
Application 13/028,595
Nonetheless, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because the
Examiner finds, and we agree, Kushler teaches the ability to input multiple
words. Final Act. 3; Ans. 11. After inputting a word (and transitioning to a
text standby state), Kushler teaches the user may select the desired words
from a list of possible selections "or request the system to display further
potentially matching words if the desired word does not appear in the list."
Kushler, col. 6, 11. 51-53; see also Ans. 11. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Kushler (in combination with Jung) teaches "determin[ing] a
process to be executed from a plurality of text input processes based on the
user's manipulating body transitioning from the text input state to the text
standby state," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and claims 2, 6-9 and 14--17, which depend therefrom and were not
argued separately. See App. Br. 11-15. For similar reasons, we also sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 12 and 13, which recite
similar limitations and were not argued separately.4 See App. Br. 11-15.
Claims 3-5
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 3-5, Appellants assert the
additional reference, Seo, fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Kushler,
as argued with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 16. We are not persuaded by
4 In the event of further prosecution, we note that claim 13 is directed to a
"computer-readable recording medium." Appellants' Specification does not
limit the medium to non-transitory media, but rather recites "[t]he recording
medium may be a magnetic disk, an optical disk and the like, for example."
Spec. i-f 20. We invite the Examiner to determine whether claim 13
comports with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
7
Appeal2015-006551
Application 13/028,595
Appellants' contention that Seo fails to resolve the deficiencies of Kushler
because, as discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's findings of
Kushler and there are no deficiencies that would need to be resolved by Seo.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-5.
Claims 10 and 11
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 10 and 11, Appellants
assert the additional reference, Nagasaka, fails to remedy the alleged
deficiencies of Kushler, as argued with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 16. We
are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that Nagasaka fails to resolve
the deficiencies of Kushler because, as discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner's findings of Kushler and there are no deficiencies that would
need to be resolved by Nagasaka.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 11.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-17.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8