Ex Parte Narioka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

10169428 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

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.
10/169,428 11/29/2002 Hiroto Narioka 450101-03568 2538
7590 12/19/2013
William S Frommer
Frommer Lawrence & Haug
745 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10151
EXAMINER
MUHEBBULLAH, SAJEDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2013 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 HIROTO NARIOKA, TAKASHI KUWAYAMA,
and TAKEO INAGAKI
____________

Appeal 2011-004489
Application 10/169,428
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004489
Application 10/169,428

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 6, 7, 10-14, and 16-19. Claims 2-5, 8, 9, and 15 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an information processing
apparatus having an operating menu system of a hierarchical structure
employing a user interface device, in which it is possible to represent the
current hysteresis layer. Spec. 2:20 to 3:3; Fig. 4.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A portable information processing apparatus comprising:
operating means for selecting an item in a menu;
display means for displaying said menu including said
item as an object of selection which employs said operating
means, and for hierarchically displaying the hysteresis
information relevant to said selected item; and
control means for controlling the display of said menu
and selection of said item in said displayed menu in said display
means and the hierarchical display of said hysteresis
information relevant to said selected item,
wherein said control means is operable to control the
display and selection of any one of a plurality of hierarchical
layers,
wherein said display means is divided into, (a) a
hierarchical hysteresis display area for displaying the hysteresis
information and for selecting the hysteresis information using
said operating means, and (b) a current display area for
Appeal 2011-004489
Application 10/169,428

3
displaying a current menu and for selecting said item using said
operating means, wherein the current display area is located
beneath the hierarchical hysteresis display area,
wherein said operating means is operative for moving a
cursor on said displayed menu by a rotation operation and for
selecting said item in said menu by a pushing operation, and
wherein said control means causes seamless continuous
movement of said cursor between the hysteresis display area
and the current display area in response to the rotation operation
of said operating means, such that when said cursor is located at
a bottom of the displayed menu on a last item in said current
display area and said operating means is operated for a further
downward rotation, said cursor exits said current display area
and is moved to a top of the displayed menu to a top item of
said hysteresis information in said hysteresis display area.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 10-12, 14, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roberge (US 6,381,611 B1,
Apr. 30, 2002), Sudo (US 5,856,827, Jan. 5, 1999), and Allison (US
6,262,722 B1, Jul. 17, 2001). Ans. 4-7.
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roberge, Sudo, Allison, and Kurakake (US 4,734,689,
Mar. 29, 1988). Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roberge, Sudo, Allison, and Barros (US 6,307,573 B1,
Oct. 23, 2001). Ans. 8-11.
The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Barros, Sudo, and Allison. Ans. 11-13.

Appeal 2011-004489
Application 10/169,428

4
ISSUE
The dispositive issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Roberge, Sudo, and Allison teaches the limitation of “when
said cursor is located at a bottom of the displayed menu on a last item in said
current display area and said operating means is operated for a further
downward rotation, said cursor exits said current display area and is moved
to a top of the displayed menu to a top item of said hysteresis information in
said hysteresis display area,” as recited in claims 1, 13, 16, 17. Claims 18
and 19 recite similar subject matter.

ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants arguments enumerated in the Appeal
Brief (App. Br. 16-23). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
as our own and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner that Roberge teaches movement within
two different areas: the current display area and the hysteresis display area
(co1.6, ll. 20, 44-45). We further agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to combine such teaching with Sudo’s teaching of scrolling
within a menu (Fig.1, 6J enables scrolling; co1.5, lines 38-49) and further
with Allison’s teaching of downward movement of a cursor to exit an area
and move to the top of another area (Allison, Fig. 7, vertical loop 113; co1.8,
ll. 28-35; cursor exits bottom and moves to top in loop manner). Thus, the
combination teaches exiting the bottom of the current display area and
entering into the top of the hysteresis display area.

Appeal 2011-004489
Application 10/169,428

5
Appellants particularly argue Allison does not teach the limitation of
“said cursor exits said current display area and is moved to a top of the
displayed menu to a top item of said hysteresis information in said hysteresis
display area,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 19). Appellants argue Allison
(Figs. 4 and 7) discloses a cursor 62 only moves between the program guide
options subgroups 60 (“by time,” “by title,” “by channel,” “calendar,”
“themes,” “prime time,” “movies,” “sports,” “kids”) but the cursor 62 never
moves up to program guide 56 (i.e., a top item of the hysteresis region).
App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 2. Appellants point out that the highlight region
62 “does not move . . . beyond the list of program guide options” (col. 8, ll.
35-37).
We do not agree. Allison teaches the manipulation of vertical keys 68
and 70 preferably does not move highlight region 62 beyond the list of
program guide options (col. 8, ll. 35-37). While this is a preferred
embodiment, Allison does not in any way preclude the teaching of
manipulating vertical keys 68 and 70 to move highlight region 62 beyond
the list of program guide options. As articulated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 12 (1966)), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
ability to move the highlight region beyond the list of programs, especially
because it is among the finite number of identified, predictable solutions and
the “person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options
within his or her technical grasp.” KSR at 421. Appellants have not
provided evidence to the contrary.
Appellants additionally argue the lack of simultaneous display of the
current display area and the hysteresis display area (App. Br. 16-23). We
Appeal 2011-004489
Application 10/169,428

6
note the term simultaneous is not recited in the claims. Thus, the arguments
are not commensurate in scope with the claim language.
With respect to claims 16, 18, and 19, we further agree with the
Examiner that Barros teaches movement within two different areas: the
current display area and hysteresis display area (co1. 16, ll. 16-25). Thus, it
would have been obvious to combine the above addressed teachings with
Barros so as to allow exiting of the current display area and entering into the
top of the hysteresis display area.
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the
same reasons the rejections of claims 6, 7, 10-14, and 16-19.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Roberge,
Sudo, and Allison teaches the limitation of “when said cursor is located at a
bottom of the displayed menu on a last item in said current display area and
said operating means is operated for a further downward rotation, said cursor
exits said current display area and is moved to a top of the displayed menu to
a top item of said hysteresis information in said hysteresis display area,” as
recited in exemplary claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 10-14, and 16-19 is
affirmed.

AFFIRMED

msc