Ex Parte Sakata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12724678 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121724,678 03/16/2010 Junichiro SAKATA
22850 7590 09/02/2016
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP,
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
354424US8CONT 7765
EXAMINER
FLANDERS, ANDREW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
ahudgens@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNICHIRO SAKATA
Appeal2014-008742
Application 12/724,678
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHN R. KENNY, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
5, 11-15, and 21-27, which constitute all pending claims. An oral hearing
was held on July 26, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-008742
Application 12/724,678
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a playback apparatus, playback method,
and a recording medium. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed
limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An information processing apparatus which is configured to
reproduce sequentially a first content, a second content, and a
third content of contents, wherein:
information relating to content is displayed on regions of a
display window;
when the first content is being reproduced, first information
related to the first content is displayed on a first region of the
display window;
in response to switching the content being reproduced from the
first content to the second content, second information related
to the second content is switched from being displayed on a
second region of the display window to the first region, third
information related to the third content is switched from being
displayed on a third region of the display window to the second
region, and the first information is switched from being
displayed on the first region to the third region, such that
display positions of the first and second information are moved
to the third and first regions, respectively;
the second region is displayed to include a first plurality of
information respectively relating to a first plurality of different
contents;
the third region is displayed to include a second plurality of
information respectively relating to a second plurality of
different contents;
the first plurality of information displayed in the second region
are displayed with a first color or luminance; and
2
Appeal2014-008742
Application 12/724,678
the second plurality of information displayed in the third region
are displayed with a second color or luminance that is different
than the first color or luminance.
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Cohen et al.
Matthews, III et al.
Looney et al.
Katinsky et al.
us 5,359,712
us 5,677,708
US 6,232,539 B 1
US 6,452,609 B 1
REJECTIONS
Oct. 25, 1994
Oct. 14, 1997
May 15, 2001
Sep. 17,2002
Claims 1-5, 11-15, 21-24, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Katinsky, Matthews, and
Looney. (Final Act. 7-17.)
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Katinsky, Matthews, Looney, and Cohen. (Final
Act. 18-20.)
Claims 1-5, 11-15, 21, and 22 stand provisionally rejected for
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 7-16 of then-pending
Application No. 11/585,139. (Final Act. 21.)
ISSUE
Appellant raises the issue of whether the prior art teaches or suggests
the first and second color/luminance limitations of claim 1, italicized above.
3
Appeal2014-008742
Application 12/724,678
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting Rejection
We note that Application No. 11/585,139 has issued, and thus we
consider the Examiner's obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
claims 1-5, 11-15, 21, and 22 ripe for review. Because Appellant does not
identify any error in the Examiner's provisional rejection of claims 1-5, 11-
15, 21, and 22 under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting (see, e.g., App. Br. 9), we sustain this rejection. In re
Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 558 (CCPA 1966).
Obviousness Rejections
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we adopt the
findings of fact made by the Examiner, concur with the Examiner's reasons
given in the Final Action and Examiner's Answer, and add the following
primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner relies on the combination of Katinsky, iviatthews, and
Looney for the color/luminance limitations of claim 1. (Final Act. 11-13;
Ans. 7-9.) Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding these
references teach or suggest the disputed limitations because (i) none of these
references uses color to distinguish the status of a particular content (i.e.,
whether the content is in the second or third region) and (ii) the combined
references would only teach or suggest using colors to distinguish categories
of music in the recited second and third regions. (App. Br. 10-24; Reply Br.
2-25.) We are not persuaded by these arguments.
As mentioned, Appellant argues that none of the references teach or
suggest the color/luminance limitations. For example, according to
Appellant, Looney teaches using colors to distinguish categories, but Looney
4
Appeal2014-008742
Application 12/724,678
does not describe playback status as a category. (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 6;
Tr. 8.) Appellant argues Katinsky teaches highlighting a selected item, but
Katinsky's selected item is not necessarily being reproduced and is not in the
recited second or third regions. (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 8.) Appellant
further argues that Matthews is not directed to a playlist and does not use
color to distinguish information displayed in the recited second and third
regions. (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 12.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments because they attack the references individually when the rejection
is based on their combined teachings. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellant argues that the references combined do not teach or suggest
the color/luminance limitations because applying the teachings of Looney to
Matthews or Katinsky would result in items that differ in color based on
their categories, not based on the regions in which they are displayed. (App.
Br. 16-1 7; Reply Br. 6.) According to Appellant, with this combination,
items would have different colors, but an individual item's color would not
change as the item moves between regions. (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because the test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Mouttet, 686 F.3d
at 1332. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Keller, 642 F.2d
at 425.
As the Examiner sets forth, Katinsky teaches using color to highlight
the name of a song being played (in the first region of the combination)
(Ans. 3--4; Katinsky Figs. 4 and 14). This teaches or suggests the use of
color to distinguish the entries in one region (first region) from the entries in
5
Appeal2014-008742
Application 12/724,678
the other regions. Matthews teaches using a variety of colors to focus a
user's attention on particular items, and Looney discloses using colors to
distinguish categories (which encompasses regions) and highlight certain
windows and underlying sections in a graphical user interface. (Ans. 7;
Matthews 2:47---63, 14:23--40; Looney 9:4-15, 11 :47---65.) We agree with
the Examiner that these teachings combined teach or suggest using color to
distinguish items in the recited second and third regions as recited in the
color/luminance limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-5, 11-
15, 21-24, 26, and 27, not separately argued. (App. Br. 10-25.)
Appellant does not separately address claim 25, which depends from
claim 1. (App. Br. 10-25.) Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of
claim 25.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-5, 11-15, and 21-27.
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
6