Ex Parte Takemura

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2014

11477453 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/477,453 06/30/2006 Takashi Takemura 00862.121302. 6947
5514 7590 09/19/2014
FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO
1290 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10104-3800
EXAMINER
GUTIERREZ, ANDRES E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2014 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 TAKASHI TAKEMURA
____________

Appeal 2012-005873
Application 11/477,4531
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before GEORGE C. BEST, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving method and
apparatus claims for displaying a help screen based on help screen
information. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Background
“The present invention relates to a help display method from an
application program or the like which runs on, e.g., an information
processing apparatus[.]” Spec. 1. “The present invention . . . has as its

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Canon Kabushiki
Kaisha. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2012-005873
Application 11/477,453

2
object to display effectual help information in an environment in which a
predetermined application program and help file are independently
installed.” Id. at 3.
The Claims
Claims 38–43, 45–50, 52, and 60–62 are on appeal. Claim 382 is
representative and reads as follows.
38. An information processing apparatus for displaying a
help screen based on help screen information, comprising:
a first display control unit adapted to display a setting
screen to set print setting information;
an installation unit adapted to install in the information
processing apparatus a simplified help file together with a
printer driver of a specific version;
a first determination unit adapted to determine whether a
detailed help file corresponding to the printer driver and
installed separately from the printer driver is present or not in
the information processing apparatus;
a second determination unit adapted to, when said first
determination unit determines that the detailed help file
corresponding to the printer driver is present, determine
whether the detailed help file is a version that matches the
specific version of the printer driver or not;
a recognition unit adapted to recognize information
contained in the setting screen displayed by said first display
control unit; and
a second display control unit adapted to,
when said second determination unit determines that the
version of the detailed help file matches the specific version of
the printer driver, display a help screen corresponding to the
recognized information contained in the setting screen based on

2 Claims 45 and 52, the only other independent claims, recite the limitations
of claim 38 in method form. See App. Br. 21–22, 23–24 (Claims App’x).
Appeal 2012-005873
Application 11/477,453

3
help screen information included in the detailed help file, and
to,
when said second determination unit determines that the
version of the detailed help file does not match the specific
version of the printer driver, display a help screen
corresponding to the recognized information contained in the
setting screen based on help screen information included in the
simplified help file installed together with the printer driver by
said installation unit.
App. Br. 19–20 (Claims App’x).
The Rejection
The Examiner maintains that claims 38–43, 45–50, 52, and 60–62
are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Katano3 in view of
Lee4 and further in view of Smith.5
DISCUSSION
Katano in view of Lee and Smith
Regarding claim 38, the Examiner asserts that Katano “discloses a
method and system for providing updated help and solution information at a
printing device” including a first display control unit, an installation unit, a
first determination unit, and a second display control unit. Ans. 5–6. The
Examiner acknowledges that Katano fails to disclose a second determination
unit as required by the claims, and the Examiner relies on Lee for this
disclosure. Id. at 7. Specifically, the Examiner asserts that Lee teaches a
determination unit that compares versions, and the Examiner argues that
“one would have been motivated to include this feature [in the device and

3 Katano, US 2004/0201867 A1, published Oct. 14, 2004.
4 Lee et al., US 7,861,162 B2, issued Dec. 28, 2010.
5 Smith, EP 0630146 A1, published Dec. 21, 1994.
Appeal 2012-005873
Application 11/477,453

4
method of Katano] in order to allow for a user to have the most recent and
current help file.” Id. The Examiner also acknowledges that Katano and
Lee do not disclose a recognition unit as required by the claims, and the
Examiner relies on Smith for this limitation. Id. at 8. The Examiner asserts
that Smith teaches a recognition unit that monitors information being
displayed, and the Examiner argues that “one would have been motivated to
include this feature [in the device and method of Katano and Lee] in order to
improve machine performance.” Id.
The issue presented with respect to this rejection is whether the
Examiner has shown that Katano discloses an installation unit, a first
determination unit, and a second display control unit, as required by claim
38, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Findings of Fact
The following findings of fact (“FF”) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
1. Katano discloses the following.
According to one embodiment of the invention,
printing device 102A detects a problem relative to the
printing device. For example, printing device 102A
automatically detects, through sensors, a paper jam in
printing module 112A. Printing device 102A downloads,
in response to detecting the problem, solution data from a
specified remote server that stores the solution data. For
example, printing device 102A downloads solution data
from help and solution data server 104, which stores
solution data in help and solution master data 124.
Printing device 102A displays, through a user interface
on the printing device, one or more recommended actions
that are based on the solution data and which address the
detected problem. For example, printing device 102A
displays one or more recommended actions through
Appeal 2012-005873
Application 11/477,453

5
operation panel 110A. Printing device 102A may select
the one or more recommended actions from among a
plurality of recommended actions, based on the detected
problem. In this manner, printing device 102A may
display one or more recommended actions that are
specifically designed to solve a particular problem.
Katano ¶ 36.
2. Katano discloses that a “sequence of recommended actions that
are customized to solve a particular problem is sometimes called
a ‘trouble recovery wizard’” and that the printing device may
display solution data in the form of a trouble recovery wizard.
Katano ¶¶ 26, 78.
3. Katano discloses the following.
[A]ccording to one embodiment of the invention, printing
device 102A determines, in response to detecting the
problem, whether the printing device can currently
access, through a communication interface of the printing
device, the specified remote server that stores the
solution data. For example, printing device 102A
determines whether it can access help and solution data
server 104 through network interface 120A and network
108. Printing device 102A may determine whether an
active network connection is present, and whether help
and solution data server 104 responds to queries made
through the network connection. For example, help and
solution data server 104 may be configured with a
particular IP address, and printing device 102A may ping
the particular IP address to determine whether the help
and solution data server is currently accessible.
Katano ¶ 39.
4. Katano discloses the following.
According to one embodiment of the invention, printing
device 102A displays, in response to determining that the
printing device cannot currently access the specified
Appeal 2012-005873
Application 11/477,453

6
remote server that stores the solution data, one or more
recommended actions that are based on solution data that
the printing device previously downloaded from the
remote server. For example, in response to determining
that printing device 102A cannot currently access help
and solution data server 104, the printing device displays
recommended actions that are based on help and solution
data 116A that is stored on persistent storage device
114A. According to one embodiment, help and solution
data 116A contains solution data that printing device
102A most recently downloaded from help and solution
data server 104. Thus, even when printing device 102A
cannot connect to help and solution data server 104,
printing device 102A can still display recommended
actions to address detected problems.
Katano ¶ 40.
5. Katano discloses that “printing device 102A may display an
initial help screen through operation panel 110A. The initial help
screen may comprise selectable user interface elements with
labels such as ‘print latest manual’ and ‘online help.’” Katano
¶ 59.
Principles of Law
“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
Analysis
Appellant argues, inter alia, that claim 38 is allowable because
Katano, Lee, and Smith do not teach or suggest an installation unit, a first
determination unit, or a second display control unit as required by the claim.
See App. Br. 12–17. As noted above, the Examiner asserts that each of these
elements is disclosed in Katano. See Ans. 5–6. For the reasons set forth
Appeal 2012-005873
Application 11/477,453

7
below, we find that the examiner erred in concluding that Katano discloses
these elements.
Katano discloses a printing device and separate help and solution data
server from which the printing device may download solution data regarding
a problem detected on the printing device. See FF1. Katano also discloses
that solution data may be displayed on the printing device in the form of a
“trouble recovery wizard.” FF 2. According to the Examiner, the help and
solution data server is an installation unit and the trouble recovery wizard is
a “[p]rogram executed by [the] printer driver specific to the printing
apparatus” and displays one or more recommended actions. Ans. 5, 17. We
find that the Examiner has failed to adequately explain how the help and
solution data server, trouble recovery wizard, and the other cited portions of
Katano meet the claim requirements for the installation unit. Specifically,
we find that the Examiner has not explained how these disclosures in Katano
teach the installation of “a simplified help file together with a printer driver
of a specific version.” The Examiner has not identified either a printer
driver or a simplified help file. Further, to the extent the Examiner considers
the trouble recovery wizard to be the simplified help file, the Examiner has
not pointed to any support in Katano for the contention that the trouble
recovery wizard is “executed by [the] printer driver specific to the printing
apparatus.” Ans. 17.
With respect to the first determination unit, the Examiner asserts that
Katano “discloses that in one embodiment of the invention, [the] printing
device detects a problem relative to the printing device and downloads all of
the solution data that pertains to the issue.” Ans. 6. The Examiner also
asserts that Katano “teaches the step of determining whether help and
Appeal 2012-005873
Application 11/477,453

8
solution data is available, and further teaches the ability to have not only old
version help information but also the ability to connect to [the] internet and
retrieve updated versions of the help information.” Id. at 17. As noted,
Katano does disclose downloading solution data that pertains to a detected
issue. See FF 1. Katano also discloses that the printing device may
determine whether access to the help and solution data server is available
and that the printing device will use previously downloaded solution data
when access to the server is not available. See FF 3; FF 4. However, the
Examiner again has failed to adequately explain how this disclosure meets
the claim requirements for the first determination unit. The claim requires
that the first determination unit is adapted to determine “whether a detailed
help file corresponding to the printer driver and installed separately from the
printer driver is present or not in the information processing apparatus.”
Without further explanation from the Examiner, we find that it is not
apparent how the cited portions of Katano disclose determining whether a
“detailed help file” is present on the printing device.
Finally, with respect to the second display control unit, the Examiner
asserts the following.
Specifically, Katano discloses that the printing device
determines, in response to detecting the problem, whether the
printing device can currently access the server to download the
appropriate solution to display. Further, Katano discloses in the
event that the printing device cannot currently access the
specified remote server to retrieve the solution, that solutions
that were previously downloaded and saved will be displayed.
Ans. 6. With respect to this limitation, the Examiner also asserts that
“printing device 102A may display an initial help screen through operation
panel 110A. The initial help screen may comprise selectable user interface
Appeal 2012-005873
Application 11/477,453

9
elements with labels such as ‘print latest manual’ and ‘online help’ . . . [.]”
Id. at 19. We find that these statements are consistent with Katano’s
disclosures. See FF 3; FF 4; FF 5. However, we again find that the
Examiner has failed to explain how these disclosures meet the requirements
of the claimed second display control unit. Without further explanation, it is
not apparent to us how the cited portions of Katano disclose determining
whether the detailed help file matches the specific version of the printer
driver and displaying either the detailed help file or the simplified help file
based on that determination.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obvious based on the proposed combination of art.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 38–43, 45–50, 52, and 60–
62.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 38–43, 45–50, 52, and 60–62.

REVERSED

tj