Ex Parte Miyazawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12754017 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121754,017 04/05/2010
60803 7590
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
09/30/2016
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.
1946-0149 5888
EXAMINER
MAZUMDER, SAPTARSHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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, FUMINORI HOMMA, and TATSUSHI
NASHIDA
Appeal2015-006163 1
Application 12/754,017
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-17. App. Br. 12. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-006163
Application 12/754,017
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a display unit (112) including a
first display area (210) displaying a plurality of thumbnails of contents and a
second display area (220) displaying detailed information of a thumbnail
selected from the plurality of thumbnails displayed in the first display area
(210). Spec. iTiT 27-28, Fig. 1.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A display control apparatus comprising:
a detection unit configured to detect a movement by at
least one of proximity of an operation tool to a display unit and
contact of the operation tool with the display unit, wherein the
display unit comprises a first display area on which an object
list in which a plurality of objects are displayed and a second
display area on which content of a selected object of the
plurality of objects is displayed;
a movement determination unit configured to determine
the movement of the operation tool based on the detection
result by the detection unit;
a list display control unit configured to control a display
of the object list displayed in the first display area based on the
determination result by the movement determination unit; and
a detailed display control unit configured to control a
display of the second display area based on the determination
result by the movement determination unit from the first display
area while continuing to display the object list on the first
display, wherein the object list on the first display area
distinguishes the selected object from unselected objects on the
object list,
wherein when the movement determination unit selects
which one of the objects of the displayed object list is selected
2
Appeal2015-006163
Application 12/754,017
based on the movement in the first display area, the content of
the selected object is displayed in the second display area while
continuing to display the object list on the first display area, and
wherein the detailed display control unit changes a
display of the content of the selected object displayed in the
second display area after the selected object has been selected
based on the movement of the operation tool in the first display
area determined by the movement determination unit while
continuing to display the object list on the first display area.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Sasaki et al. US 2006/023 8625 Al Oct. 26, 2006
("Sasaki")
Lee et al. US 2007/0035616 Al Feb. 15,2007
("Lee '616")
Ording et al. US 2007 /0132789 Al June 14, 2007
("Ording")
Ishiyama US 2007/0195167 Al Aug. 23, 2007
Matsunaga et al. US 2009/0019399 Al Jan. 15,2009
("Matsunaga")
Lee et al. US 2010/0229198 Al Sept. 9, 2010
("Lee '198")
Miyamoto et al. US 8,075,401 B2 Dec. 13, 2011
("Miyamoto")
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, and 9-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee '616 and Matsunaga. Final Act. 2-13.
3
Appeal2015-006163
Application 12/754,017
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee '616, Matsunaga, and Ishiyama. Final Act. 13-15.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee '616, Matsunaga, and Miyamoto. Final Act. 15-18.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee '616, Matsunaga, and Ording. Final Act. 18-20.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee '616, Matsunaga, Ording, and Lee '198. Final Act.
20-22.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee '616, Matsunaga, and Sasaki. Final Act. 22-24.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 13-22, and the Reply Brief, pages 4--14.2
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Lee '616 and Matsunaga teaches or suggests
"wherein the detailed display control unit changes a display of the content of
the selected object displayed in the second display area after the selected
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 29, 2014) ("App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed June 1, 2015), and the Answer (mailed April 1, 2015) for the
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal2015-006163
Application 12/754,017
object has been selected based on the movement of the operation tool in the
first display area," as recited in independent claim 1?
Appellants argue Matsunaga does not teach or suggest changing the
display of the content of the selected object displayed in the second display
after the selected object has been selected. App. Br. 13-14. Appellants
assert the claim requires that the content in the second display area is
changed based on movement of the operating tool in the first display after
the selection. Reply Br. 4. Appellants assert Matsunaga teaches the
thumbnail images 51 remain unchanged after selection. App. Br. 15 (citing
Matsunaga Figs. 7 A, 8), 16-17 (citing Matsunaga i-fi-1 60, 72, 7 6); Reply Br.
6-9. However, Appellants note selected thumbnail image (51A) is displayed
in display area (54). App. Br. 15 (citing Matsunaga Fig. 8). Appellants
argue the claim requires that the "movement of an operating tool in the first
display area can manipulate and change content that has already been
selected and is being displayed in the second display area." App. Br. 15
(emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 7, 8-9. These arguments are not persuasive.
At the outset, we note the latter argument regarding the movement of
an operating tool is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The
Examiner correctly notes the claim does not recite movement of an operating
tool in a first display area can manipulate and change content that has
already been selected and is already being displayed in the second display
area. Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner the claim requires selecting an
object based on the movement of the operation tool in the first display area.
Ans. 5. However, the claim does not require changing a display of the
5
Appeal2015-006163
Application 12/754,017
content of the selected object based on the movement of the operation tool in
the first display area. App. Br 15; Reply Br. 7, 8-9.
Further, the Examiner correctly finds that Matsunaga teaches
enlarging the display content in the second display after selection of the
thumbnail in the first display based on the movement of a finger as the
operation tool. Ans. 3 (citing Matsunaga Fig. 7 A). "The selected image 53
is based on the image data corresponding to the thumbnail image 51 selected
by the user from among the thumbnail images displayed on the thumbnail
image display area 52." Ans. 4 (quoting Matsunaga i-f 60) (emphasis
omitted). The Examiner explains the thumbnail image is enlarged in the
second display by an enlargement factor that can be adjusted. Ans. 4 (citing
Matsunaga Figs. 7A, 14, i-f 63). We agree with the Examiner. Matsunaga
teaches that the second display 54 is changed after selection by user's finger
of thumbnail 51A to display an enlarged version of the content of the
thumbnail 53(53A), the size of which can subsequently be adjusted. See
Matsunaga Fig. 7 A, i-fi-1 60, 63). It follows Appellants have not shown error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2-17, because Appellants have
either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above (App. Br. 17-22; Reply Br. 9-14), claims 2-
17 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
6
Appeal2015-006163
Application 12/754,017
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 as set forth
above.
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
7