Ex Parte Shima et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2019

12844669 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/844,669 07/27/2010
36738 7590 02/12/2019
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hisato Shima
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.
SA980028-US-CNT[2] 8508
EXAMINER
ULRICH, NICHOLAS S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2019 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HISATO SHIMA, ATSUSHI SUZUKI, and
TAKUY A NISHIMURA
Appeal2017-005205
Application 12/844,669
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-9 and 24--37. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Sony Corp. as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed April 20, 2016
("Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed October 6, 2016 ("Ans."); and Final
Office Action mailed April 4, 2016 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2017-005205
Application 12/844,669
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 24, and 32 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A computer memory that is not a transitory signal and
that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor
for:
receiving data at a controller device from a target device,
wherein the data is operable to define graphical elements of at
least one graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the GUI is
associated with the target device when rendered by the
controller device, the data operable to define elements of the
GUI including:
at least a first control object representing a respective
information display, the first control object including data
representing a type of control object represented by the first
control object, the first control object including data
representing a graphical image to be rendered, the first control
object representing a playback control type, the data operable to
define at least a second control object representing a volume
control type;
using the controller device to generate the GUI based on
the data, wherein user interaction with the graphical elements of
GUI is operable to control at least one operation of the target
device, wherein the data received from the target device
includes information defining a presentation for the controller
device including defined selectors for respective groups of
objects, such that each group of objects is represented by a
respective selector in the presentation, a selector being
selectable to present a respective group of objects on the
controller device.
2
Appeal2017-005205
Application 12/844,669
Baker
Wannan
Naughton
Darbee
James
Kawaguchi
References
us 5,428,730 June 27, 1995
us 5,657,221 Aug. 12, 1997
us 6,020,881 Feb. 1, 2000
us 6,130,726 Oct. 10, 2000
us 6,133,938 Oct. 17, 2000
US 6,271,893 Bl Aug. 7, 2001
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 24--31 stand rejected for non-statutory obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 1-8 of US Patent 7,865,832 in view of Baker.
Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 1--4 and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Naughton and Warman. Final Act. 4--10.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Naughton, Warman, and Baker. Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 24, 28, 32, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Naughton and Baker. Final Act. 11-13.
Claims 25-27 and 33-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Naughton, Baker, and Kawaguchi. Final Act. 13-
14.
Claims 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Naughton, Baker, and James. Final Act. 15.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Naughton, Baker, and Darbee. Final Act. 16.
3
Appeal2017-005205
Application 12/844,669
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (Br. 4--8). We are not persuaded by
Appellants' contentions. Insofar as they relate to issues raised in this appeal,
we adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection
and Examiner's Answer as our own (Final Act. 4--16; Ans. 2-7), and we
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Appellants do not challenge the merits of the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 24--31; accordingly, we summarily sustain this
rejection.
Rejections of Claims 5, 24, 28-31, 32, 36, and 37 under 35 USC§ 103(a)
Appellants do not provide arguments directed to the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 5, 24, 28-31, 32, 36, and 37.
Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in these rejections, and we sustain
these rejections.
Rejection of Claims 1-4 and 6-9 under 35 USC§ 103(a)
Appellants argue Warman does not teach a "first control object
representing a playback control type," as recited in claim 1. Br. 4--5. We
are not persuaded. Warman discloses "a graphical control system for
controlling non-computer system devices," which "are devices that can be
electronically controlled such as musical amplifiers and equalizers,
4
Appeal2017-005205
Application 12/844,669
television sets, VCRs, video cameras, etc." Warman, col. 3, 11. 17-21.
Warman further states that "[ t ]he graphical control system includes a
computer [and] an interface(s) for a non-computer system device(s) having
at least one feature control" and that "[ t ]he computer portion causes the
computer to generate or create graphical controls that represent the type of
feature controls normally associated with the non-computer system devices
connected to the network." Warman, col. 3, 11. 25-27, 44--49 (emphasis
added). Based on Warman's disclosure, the Examiner found that "a VCR is
normally associated with playback controls, such as play, stop, FF, RW.
Thus graphical controls that represent the type of feature controls normally
associated with a VCR would include playback controls." Ans. 3. We agree
with the Examiner that Warman's disclosure of controlling a device, such as
a VCR, using feature controls normally associated with such a device
teaches a "playback control."
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings of Naughton and Warman. Br. 5-6. The Examiner relied on the
following passage in Warman in support of the rationale to combine: "[T]he
graphical control system should provide for dynamic visual device controls
that represent each feature control of a device and allow a user to graphically
control and monitor each device without having any specific knowledge
about the device and without making any physical contact with the device."
Warman, col. 3, 11. 7-12, cited in Final Act. 8. Appellants argue that this
passage provides "at most merely a reason to use Warman on its own, and
not in the different context of Naughton, which requires the remote devices
that send their GUI objects to the controller to be physically manipulated by
the user and thus require the user to have knowledge of them." Br. 6.
5
Appeal2017-005205
Application 12/844,669
We are not persuaded that the Examiner improperly combined the
teachings of Naughton and Warman. As the Examiner correctly pointed out,
both Naughton and Warman are directed to controlling external electronic
devices. Ans. 4. Both Naughton and Warman identify VCRs as examples
of such devices. Naughton, col. 7, 11. 17-20; Warman, col. 3, 11. 19-21. We
agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine Warman's teachings of providing certain device
controls, such as playback controls, with the teachings of Naughton, which
are also directed to controlling external electronic devices. See Ans. 4--5.
The Examiner provided the following reasoning to support the combination
of Naughton and Warman:
[O]ne skilled in the art would recognize the advantages of the
combination of Naughton and Warman in order to provide a first
control object representing a playback control function and a
second object teaching a volume control type in the context of
Naughton in order to provide dynamic visual device controls that
represent each feature control of a device and allow a user to
graphically control and monitor each device without having
specific knowledge about the device and without making any
physical contact with the device.
Ans. 4--5. We find this reasoning to be well-articulated and rationally
underpinned. We do not agree with Appellants' assertion that Warman's
disclosure undermines the Examiner's rationale. See Br. 5---6. Rather, the
cited disclosure underscores the advantage of providing the user with feature
controls for external devices. See Warman, col. 3, 11. 7-12.
Because we are not persuaded of error, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 2--4 and 6-9, which are
not argued separately.
6
Appeal2017-005205
Application 12/844,669
Rejection of Claims 25-27 and 33-35
Each of claims 25 and 33 recites "a first attribute corresponding to a
total number of columns of a matrix" and "a second attribute corresponding
to a total number of rows of the matrix." Each of claims 26 and 34 recites "a
third attribute corresponding to a number of columns of the matrix to be
displayed by the on-screen display" and "a fourth attribute corresponding to
a number of rows of the matrix to be displayed by the on-screen display."
Each of claims 27 and 35 recites "a fifth attribute corresponding to a column
number of a first column of the on-screen display" and "a sixth attribute
corresponding to a row number of a first row of [the] on-screen display."
As to claims 26 and 34, Appellants argue the relied-upon portions of
Kawaguchi "are not limits on what is presented, but rather relate to the
otherwise irrelevant 'readiness' levels of the reference." Br. 7. We
disagree. As the Examiner correctly found, Kawaguchi discloses that a
subset of the total columns and rows is displayed. Ans. 5---6 ( citing
Kawaguchi, col. 11, 11. 5-20, Fig. 14 ). Referring to its Figure 14,
Kawaguchi discloses that "programs of channels 1 through 8 from 12/1 7
3 p.m. to 12/18 2:59 p.m., i.e., programs in a range defined by a white box
are first displayed in a frame." Kawaguchi, col. 11, 11. 9-12.
As to claims 27 and 35, Appellants contend the Examiner relied on
one item in Kawaguchi to teach both the first attribute (total number of
columns of a matrix) in claims 25 and 33 and the fifth attribute ( column
number of a first column) in claims 27 and 35. Br. 7-8. We disagree
because, as explained in the Answer, the Examiner relied on Kawaguchi's
"total number of available channels as the first attribute and the first channel
7
Appeal2017-005205
Application 12/844,669
displayed by the defined range of the 'white box' as the fifth attribute."
Ans. 7.
We are not persuaded of error, and, therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claims 25-27 and 33-35.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 24--37.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8