13869466 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2016)

Ex Parte Suzuki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 2, 2016

13869466 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/869,466 04/24/2013 27562 7590 09/07/2016 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Toshiaki SUZUKI 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. SJP-5823-19 1094 EXAMINER ADAMS, EILEEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/07/2016 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOSHIAKI SUZUKI and KENICHI MASUDA 1 Appeal2015-004483 Application 13/869,466 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-15.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Technology The application relates to "presenting more information to the user when displaying a panoramic image." Spec. i-f 4. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the dispositive limitation emphasized: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program to be executed by a computer of an information processing device configured to display a partial area of a panoramic video on a display device, wherein 1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Hal Laboratory, Inc. App. Br. 3. 2 Claim 16 was objected to for depending on a rejected claim. Final Act. 20. Appeal2015-004483 Application 13/869,466 the information processing program instructs the computer to perform functionality comprising: determining a display range of the panoramic video to be displayed on the display device based on an input made on a predetermined input device; setting a range and/ or a position on a panoramic image as a target; and displaying the panoramic video of the display range on the display device, and outputting guide information representing a spatial relationship between the display range and the target. Rejections Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Dialameh et al. (US 2011/0216179 A 1; Sept. 8, 2011) and Ohba et al. (US 2011/0273470 Al; Nov. 10, 2011). Final Act. 3. Ohba was used solely for the "outputting guide information ... " limitation (Final Act. 4), and when Appellants later proposed amending that limitation, the Examiner found Stinson et al. (US 2012/0060177 Al; Mar. 8, 2012) taught the proposed amended limitation (i.e., in place of Ohba). See Examiner-Initiated Interview Summary (Sept. 11, 2014). Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Dialameh, Ohba, and Pea et al. (US 2011/0096144 Al; Apr. 28, 2011). Final Act. 11. Claims 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Dialameh, Ohba, and Smith et al. (US 2007/0273558 Al; Nov. 29, 2007). Final Act. 18. ANALYSIS Claims 1-15 All of the independent claims (1, 13, 14, and 15) recite "output[ ting] guide information representing a spatial relationship between the display 2 Appeal2015-004483 Application 13/869,466 range and the target." As discussed above, the Examiner relies on either Ohba or Stinson for teaching this limitation. Final Act. 4; Examiner- Initiated Interview Summary (Sept. 11, 2014 ). Appellants contend neither Ohba nor Stinson teaches or suggests this limitation. App. Br. 12-16. We agree with the Examiner that Appellants argue limitations not recited in the claims. E.g., App. Br. 13 ("Ohba ... does not display guide information"), 16 ("Stinson does not provide 'guide information' in the image") (italics added, original emphasis omitted); Ans. 22-23. For example, even though claim 1 recites "displaying ... on the display device" and "outputting guide information" in the same paragraph, the claim as written does not require that the guide information be "displayed" or visually "shown"; instead, the guide information merely must be "output." Nevertheless, "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting Kahn). "The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained." 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.104(c)(2). Here, the Examiner has failed to sufficiently identify what the claimed "guide information" is or how that guide information is "output." For example, the Examiner saying Stinson discloses "a display of a video image of a panoramic scene and an output of video image data that represents a display of a select viewable region of the video image on the display screen" fails to identify what, if anything, the Examiner believes constitutes the claimed "guide information." Ans. 23. Similarly, to the extent the 3 Appeal2015-004483 Application 13/869,466 Examiner suggests the "predetermined range" in paragraph 145 of Ohba is the claimed "guide information," the Examiner has not clearly explained how that predetermined range is ever "output." Ans. 22. It is apparent that Ohba's "predetermined range" may be input to the program from a "scenario definition file" and used to automatically pull the displayed image toward a target called a guidance area. See Ohba i-f 145. In that case, the target may be output or displayed, but the claims require outputting the "guide information," not the "target," and the Examiner has not articulated reasoning for how the predetermined range itself is output. Given this limited record, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1or13-15, nor claims 2-12, which ultimately depend from claim 1. DECISION For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15. REVERSED 4