Ex Parte Miyazawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12839280 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

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.
12/839,280 07/19/2010 Yusuke Miyazawa 1946-0132 7892
60803 7590 09/27/2016
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
EXAMINER
NGO, TONY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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 MIYAZAWA, FUMINORI HOMMA, and
TATSUSHI NASHIDA
____________

Appeal 2015-006911
Application 12/839,280
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1−7 and 9−21.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claim

1 Appellants identify Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br.
3.
Appeal 2015-006911
Application 12/839,280

2
1. A display apparatus comprising:
a display screen;
an operation area control unit that displays an operation
area for a user to perform an input operation on the display
screen, wherein said operation area includes a software input
keyboard configured to receive character input from a user;
a display area control unit that displays a display area that
is spatially separated from said operation area for displaying
input information on the display screen, wherein said displaying
input information comprises displaying a software display
keyboard, wherein the software display keyboard is configured
to display the entry of characters from a user that is input into the
separate software input keyboard;
a device that is provided to the display screen and detects
an input operation performed by a user in the operation area;
an arithmetic unit that selects input information based on
the input operation detected by the device; and
an input information presentation unit that presents the
input information selected by the arithmetic unit in the display
area to prompt the user to check the input information.
App. Br. 19 (Claims Appx).
Rejections
Claims 1−7 and 9−21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pihlaja (US 2006/0017711 A1; Jan. 26, 2006) and
Jung (US 2009/0219251 A1; Sept. 3, 2009).2

2 The Final Action states claims 1−13 are rejected over Pihlaja and Jung.
Final Act. 3 (mailed Aug. 12, 2014). However, the ensuing explanation of
the rejection plainly shows that the rejection pertains to claims 1−7 and
9−21. We hold harmless this typographical error. The Final Action also
states that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rather than 35
Appeal 2015-006911
Application 12/839,280

3
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pihlaja and
Jung teaches or suggests a “software input keyboard” where characters are
input and a spatially separate “software display keyboard” where the input
characters are displayed, as required by representative claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Jung teaches or
suggests claim 1’s software display keyboard, which displays characters
entered by a separate software input keyboard. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4−5.
In particular, Appellants argue that Jung’s feedback region 42 (illustrated by
Figure 7C) is not a software display keyboard. App. Br. 11−12, 15−16;
Reply Br. 4−5.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive because Jung’s feedback region 42
merely displays a shape corresponding to a user’s input (e.g., the letter “A”).
See Jung Fig. 7C, ¶¶ 91–92. The depiction of such a shape falls short of a
software display keyboard having a key layout for an input operation. See
Spec. ¶ 18.
The Examiner notes that “Jung clearly teaches a software display
keyboard” (i.e., input keyboard 41). Ans. 3 (citing Jung Fig. 7C). However,
this displayed keyboard is coextensive with Jung’s input or operation area
rather than being part of a display area that is spatially separate from an
operation area. See Jung Fig. 7C. Therefore, Jung’s input keyboard 21 is
insufficient to teach or suggest the claimed software display keyboard. The

U.S.C. § 103(a). Id. However, this is a typographical error that has already
been acknowledged. Id. at 26.
Appeal 2015-006911
Application 12/839,280

4
Examiner’s findings do not show that Pihlaja cures the noted deficiency of
Jung.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–7 and 9–21, which contain similar
recitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1−7 and 9−21.

REVERSED