Ex Parte Yamagishi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 15, 201311603611 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YOSHIKAZU YAMAGISHI and MASATO MATSUMURA ____________ Appeal 2010-012362 Application 11/603,611 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-012362 Application 11/603,611 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a composite displaying unit displaying a predetermined sub-screen 32 on the screen 30 and the main screen downscaled 31 so that the whole main screen is displayed on the remaining range of the screen when the mouse operation determining unit determines, during the full-screen display, that the moving operation is a predetermined first movement. See Abstract; Figs. 5 and 6. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An image displaying apparatus for a computer that is capable of accepting an operation of a mouse and selectively executing one of a full-screen display and a frame display on a screen of a monitor, the apparatus comprising: a main screen generating unit that generates a predetermined image on the screen; a full-screen displaying unit that displays the image in the full-screen display; a first mouse operation determining unit that detects a moving operation of the mouse to determine whether the moving operation is a predetermined first movement; a full-screen display detecting unit that detects whether the image on the screen is in the full-screen display; and a composite displaying unit that displays a predetermined sub-screen on the screen and the main screen that is downscaled so that the entire main screen is displayed on the remaining portion of the screen when the first mouse operation Appeal 2010-012362 Application 11/603,611 3 determining unit determines, during the full-screen display, that the moving operation is the first movement. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ludolph (U.S. Pat. No.5,874,958, Feb. 23, 1999) in view of Jones (U.S. Pat. No.6,654,036 B1, Nov. 25, 2003). 2. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ludolph, Jones, and Ackerschewski (U.S. Pat. 7,149,968 B1, Dec. 12, 2006, filed Jan. 21, 2002). 3. The Examiner rejected claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ludolph, Jones, and Sie (U.S. 2003/0233656 A1, Dec. 18, 2003). 4. The Examiner rejected claims 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ludolph, Jones, Sie, and Baker (U.S. 7,224,382 B2, May 29, 2007, filed Apr. 8, 2003). 5. The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ludolph, Jones, Sie, Baker and Shintani (U.S. 6,490,002 B1, Dec. 3, 2002). ISSUE The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ludolph and Jones teaches the limitation of: a composite displaying unit that displays a predetermined sub-screen on the screen and the main screen that is downscaled so that the entire main screen is displayed on the remaining portion of the screen when the first mouse operation determining Appeal 2010-012362 Application 11/603,611 4 unit determines, during the full-screen display, that the moving operation is the first movement as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the combination of Ludolph and Jones does not teach the limitation of: a composite displaying unit that displays a predetermined sub-screen on the screen and the main screen that is downscaled so that the entire main screen is displayed on the remaining portion of the screen when the first mouse operation determining unit determines, during the full-screen display, that the moving operation is the first movement as recited in claim 1 (Br. 8-9). Jones describes that if the likelihood exists that a user activity site will move into an obstructed position, then the screen arrangement is reformatted so that the activity area is contained in the viewable screen area (col. 2, ll. 10-20). Jones further describes that a user may desire that a particular window remains visible throughout the rearrangement process (col. 6, l. 60-col. 7, l. 5). Jones also teaches that repositioning may include resizing so that the user activity and all or selected windows are contained in a screen area (col. 5, ll. 46-49). Accordingly, while we reviewed the above Jones’ sections as relied upon by the Examiner, we do not agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16) that Jones provides the teaching of displaying a sub-screen, down scaling the main screen and displaying it in the remaining portion of the screen. At best, we agree that Jones teaches downsizing but we do not find a teaching of downsizing and displaying in the remaining portion of the screen. Appeal 2010-012362 Application 11/603,611 5 Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-6 and 19-22. The additional references cited by the Examiner do not cure the above cited deficiency. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-18. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ludolph and Jones teaches the limitation of: a composite displaying unit that displays a predetermined sub-screen on the screen and the main screen that is downscaled so that the entire main screen is displayed on the remaining portion of the screen when the first mouse operation determining unit determines, during the full-screen display, that the moving operation is the first movement as recited in claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation