Ex Parte Yamaguchi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2014

11976242 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
11/976,242 10/23/2007 Kenji Yamaguchi F9125-06200 9056
53897 7590 01/31/2014
DUANE MORRIS LLP - San Diego
750 B Street
Suite 2900
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4681
EXAMINER
OBERLY, ERIC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2014 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 KENJI YAMAGUCHI, YASUTARO MIYAKE,
and NORIKO SHIKATA
____________

Appeal 2011-010667
Application 11/976,242
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 13 and 14. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-010667
Application 11/976,242

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Illustrative claim 13 is reproduced below with paragraphing added.
13. An information processing device, provided with a display
device, for displaying information indicating a number of
pieces of data having been transferred during execution of
transferring a plurality of pieces of data, the information
processing device comprising:
a transfer unit operable to perform a data transfer
between a first storage medium provided in the information
processing device and a second storage medium connected to
the information processing device; and
a display control unit operable to cause the display device
to display the number of pieces of data having been transferred
by the transfer unit and update the display such that:
until the number of pieces of data having been transferred
reaches a first predetermined number, the display of the
number of pieces of data is updated each time a second
predetermined number of pieces of data is transferred;
and
after the number of pieces of data having been transferred
exceeds the first predetermined number, the display of
the number of pieces of data is updated each time a third
predetermined number, which is greater than the second
predetermined number, of pieces of data is transferred,
wherein the first predetermined number is greater than
the second predetermined number.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,158,266 B2 to Kameyama, Pearce,
Appeal 2011-010667
Application 11/976,242

3
Martyn J., Term Progress Bar 2.09, Internet Archive Wayback Machine
(Apr. 8, 2005)1, and U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0182409 A1 to Seaman. Ans. 3-6.
The Examiner rejected claim 14 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kameyama, Pearce, and Seaman. Ans. 6-8.
ANALYSIS
Claim 13 is independent. Claim 14 depends from claim 13. Each of
claims 13 and 14 is rejected as obvious over the same proposed combination
of Kameyama’s, Pearce’s, and Seaman’s teachings.
As explained below with reference to claim 13, an issue on appeal is
whether the proposed combination yields a progress bar that decreases
progress updates in response to attaining a threshold amount of progress;
that is, as claimed, a progress bar whereby “after the number of pieces of
data having been transferred exceeds the first predetermined number, the
display of the number of pieces of data is updated each time a third
predetermined number, which is greater than the second predetermined
number, of pieces of data is transferred” (claim 13). As also explained
below, the issue arises from Appellants’ misunderstanding of the proposed
combination of prior art teachings. We first explain the proposed
combination and then address Appellants’ misunderstanding and
corresponding arguments.
Kameyama is cited as teaching the claimed invention’s capability to
perform a data transfer and to display a corresponding progress bar. Ans. 3-
4. That is, Kameyama is cited as teaching all but the particular manner in

1http://web.archive.org/web/20050408074218/http://search.cpan.org/~fluffy/
Term-ProgressBar-2.09/lib/Term/ProgressBar.pm
Appeal 2011-010667
Application 11/976,242

4
which the claimed invention displays the progress updates, as required by
the indented limitations of claim 13 as reproduced supra. Id.
Pearce is cited as teaching the claimed invention’s selection of a
progress bar update value/increment. Ans. 5, 10-11, 16-17. Pearce teaches
selecting of a progress bar update/increment value that: (i) results in a visible
increment in light of the total known/estimated amount of data to be
transferred, e.g., resulting in at least a one-pixel addition to the progress bar
(id. at “DESCRIPTION” section); and (ii) is not undesirably infrequent, e.g.,
updates once per second (id. at “Using Completion Time Estimation”
section). In view of Pearce’s teachings, the Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to base the selection of a progress bar’s
update/increment value upon the total amount of data that will be
transferred, particularly selecting larger increments for larger total amounts.
Ans. 16-17.
Seaman is cited as suggesting, in view of Pearce, the claimed
invention’s re-selection of a progress bar update/increment value if and
when the amount of data presently transferred reaches a predetermined
threshold value. Ans. 6, 12, 16-17. Seaman teaches a progress bar for
indicating the completed percentage of an unknown data transfer. Seaman,
abst.; ¶¶ [0002-3, 11]. In an embodiment of Seaman, the progress bar
indicates the completed percentage by: estimating the total amount of time
that will be required for 100% completion; displaying the presently
completed percentage as a function of the estimated total time and presently
incurred duration of data transfer; and, if and when a threshold percentage of
the estimated total time has been attained, increasing the estimated total
time. Id. at ¶ [0012]. Considering Seaman’s teachings for data transfer
Appeal 2011-010667
Application 11/976,242

5
estimations and progress bar thresholds in view of Pearce’s teachings for
data transfer amounts and progress bar update/increment values, the
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to program a progress
bar to perform the following operations: estimate a total amount of data to
be transferred; increase the estimated total amount upon attaining a threshold
percentage of the prior estimated total amount; and, in turn, increase the
progress bar’s update/increment value in accord with the increase of the
estimated total amount (in view of Pearce). Ans. 16.
Appellants argue:
Pearce does not disclose changing the frequency of updating the
display of the number of pieces of data having been transferred
after the number of pieces of data having been transferred
exceeds a predetermined threshold value. In fact, the Examiner
acknowledges these deficiencies of Pearce, on page 4 of the
final Action, but cites Seaman as disclosing the aforementioned
features.
App. Br. 5. Appellants misunderstand the rejection as finding that Seaman,
alone, teaches increasing the amount by which a progress bar is
updated/incremented if and when the data transfer attains a predetermined
threshold. App. Br. 5. Rather, as clarified above, the Examiner determined
that this claim feature would have been obvious in view of Pearce and
Seaman collectively. Appellants “cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants also argue:
Seaman aims to prevent the display of ProgressBar from
becoming 100% when the stored previous estimated completion
time for the applicable device service (“E”) is reached, although
Appeal 2011-010667
Application 11/976,242

6
the process has not been completed. In order to achieve this
goal, Seaman decreases the increment of progress to be
displayed each time the display of ProgressBar is updated.
Id. at 6. Appellants’ argument fails to address the Examiner’s rejection.
The argument is not directed to the Examiner’s determination, in view of
Pearce and Seaman, that it would have been obvious to program a progress
bar to estimate a total amount of data to be transferred and, upon attaining a
threshold percentage of the estimated total amount, increase both the
estimation and corresponding update/increment value. Ans. 16. Rather, the
argument is directed strictly to Seaman’s exemplary progress bar that
estimates a total amount of time required for 100% completion of a data
transfer. Appellants therefore do not even argue – and it is not evident – that
the Examiner unreasonably determined it was within the skill in the art to
estimate a total amount of data to be transferred and accordingly adjust both
the estimate and progress bar’s update/increment value in light of attaining a
threshold completion of the prior estimated total amount. See KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[Obviousness] analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); EWP Corp.
v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A reference
must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not
limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect.
On the issue of obviousness, the combined teachings of the prior art as a
whole must be considered.”); Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
Appeal 2011-010667
Application 11/976,242

7
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” (Citations
omitted)).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13 and 14 as
obvious over Kameyama, Pearce, and Seaman.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13and 14 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tj