Ex Parte Mizunuma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2017

13422451 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 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.
13/422,451 03/16/2012 Hiroyuki MIZUNUMA 1946-0402 8957
142241 7590 11/13/2017
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
EXAMINER
TZENG, FRED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/13/2017 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 HIROYUKI MIZUNUMA,
KAZUYUKI YAMAMOTO, and
IKUO YAMANO
Appeal 2017-000005
Application 13/422,451
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000005
Application 13/422,451
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to an information processing apparatus,
information processing method, and program. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An information processing apparatus, comprising:
a sensor electrode that has a capacitance changed in
accordance with an operation by an operation object made upon
or in proximity to an operation surface;
a detection unit configured to detect, based on the change
of the capacitance, a displacement of a coordinate value of an
operation point of the operation surface, wherein the operation
point corresponds to a point at which the operation object
comes into contact with or comes within a proximity range to
the operation surface; and
a determination unit configured to determine a press to
the operation surface based on the change over a time period of
the capacitance value of the sensor electrode at the operation
point and the displacement of the coordinate value of the
operation point,
wherein the detection unit and the determination unit are
each implemented via at least one processor.
2
Appeal 2017-000005
Application 13/422,451
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lee et al. US 2011/0285642 A1 Nov. 24, 2011
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Lee.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend that Lee fails
to disclose “a detection unit configured to detect, based on the change of the
capacitance, a displacement of a coordinate value of an operation point of
the operation surface.” (App. Br. 12—14; Reply Br. 4.)
“[Ajnticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior
art reference discloses every element of the claim . . . .” In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBHv. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
“[Ajbsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.”
Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable
3
Appeal 2017-000005
Application 13/422,451
over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the
scope of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent
applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving
claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification as
it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly
interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner generally cites to
paragraphs 13, 14, 42, 85—87 and Figure 11 of the Lee reference. The
Examiner maintains “Lee clearly and specifically discloses that the control
unit 300 generates the vector coordinate information depending on
capacitance ratios of an input device, then movement of the pointer is
controlled. The movement of the pointer is the displacement of coordinate
value of a single operation point.” (Ans. 3.) We disagree with the Examiner
and find that the disclosure of movement in the Lee reference does not
disclose “displacement of coordinate value[s] of a single operation point” as
maintained by the Examiner.
As a result, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1 over the Lee reference and the anticipation rejection of
dependent claims 2—5 over the Lee reference for the same reasons.
With respect to independent claims 6 and 7, Appellants rely upon the
same arguments as advanced with respect to independent claim 1. (Reply
Br. 5.) We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not made a
persuasive showing regarding the similar limitations in independent claims 6
and 7. As a result, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 6
and 7 and their respective dependent claims 8—15.
4
Appeal 2017-000005
Application 13/422,451
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—15 based upon anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-15.
REVERSED
5