Ex Parte Nakano

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13466299 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/466,299 05/08/2012
133303 7590 06/28/2016
TYPHAIPLLC
1819 L Street NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hitoshi NAKANO
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.
5725-0008 2378
EXAMINER
ABRAHAM, AHMED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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 HITOSHI NAKANO
Appeal2014-006257
Application 13/466,299
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006257
Application 13/466,299
STATE~v1ENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a terminal device for database operations.
Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation
emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A terminal device, comprising:
an interface configured to receive, via a communication
network, data from a database server;
a buffer configured to temporarily store the data received
by the interface in order to display the data on a display device;
and
a controller configured to cause initiation of saving the
data stored in the buffer to a non-volatile memory at
predetermined time intervals, in response to a determination that
the data stored in the buffer is displayed on the display device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yamashita
Wilkinson
Wilson
Gibbs
Bartko
Kenji
us 5,881,381
US 2003/0023954 Al
US 2007/0244571 Al
US 2009/0018683 Al
US 2010/0287114 Al
JP 2004/038419 A
2
Mar. 9, 1999
Jan.30,2003
Oct. 18, 2007
Jan. 15,2009
Nov. 11, 2010
Feb. 5,2004
Appeal2014-006257
Application 13/466,299
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 11, 12, 14--17, and 19--21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kenji and Gibbs. Final Act.
2-10.
Claims 3, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kenji, Gibbs, and Wilson. Final Act. 10-14.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kenji, Gibbs, and Bartko. Final Act. 15-16.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kenji, Gibbs, and Yamashita. Final Act. 16.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kenji, Gibbs and Wilkinson. Final Act. 16-17.
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION 1
Appellant contends "Gibbs calculates when the transfer to the buffer
is required based on some factors, such as 'the type of data filing being
played (e.g.[,] music versus speech), the time for the motor 182 (see FIG.[]3)
to reach the proper speed, the data transfer rate of the storage device 126,
and the like,"' however, Gibbs fails to teach or suggest saving data in
response to a determination that the data stored in the buffer is displayed, as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 14.
1 We note Appellant raises additional contentions of error but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3
Appeal2014-006257
Application 13/466,299
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We agree with Appellant's conclusions as to this
rejection of the claims.
The Examiner finds Gibb's processor determines a point in time at
which to initiate a data transfer from a spinning storage media to a buffer
and generating a control signal. Final Act. 3. The Examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to include a controller configured to
cause initiation of saving the data stored in the buffer to a non-
volatile memory at predetermined time intervals, in response to
a determination that the data stored in the buffer is displayed,
on the display device in the invention of Kenji as taught by
Gibbs, so the system can easily achieve the predictable result of
collecting and managing information in an efficient form (See
Gibbs claim [l]).
Final i~ .. ct. 4.
We disagree with the Examiner. Upon review of the cited portions of
Kenji and Gibbs, we are unable to identify disclosure of initiating a data
storage step in response to determining that the stored data is displayed as
required by the disputed limitation of claim 1. In the absence of such
evidence or reasoning by the Examiner explaining why the combination of
Kenji and Gibbs would teach or suggest the disputed limitation, we are
constrained from sustaining the rejection of independent claim 1. For the
same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 11, 16,
and 21 which include substantially the same disputed limitation as claim 1,
nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20.
4
Appeal2014-006257
Application 13/466,299
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
5