Ex Parte Yamamoto

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2012

11493490 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/493,490 07/25/2006 Masaru Yamamoto 96790P547 8953
8791 7590 08/31/2012
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
HA, NGUYEN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MASARU YAMAMOTO
____________________

Appeal 2010-003925
Application 11/493,490
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003925
Application 11/493, 490

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
According to Appellant, the invention relates to “a printing press
abnormal state display method and apparatus which detect and display an
abnormal state of an element of a printing press.” Spec., p. 1 ll. 7-10. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 A printing press abnormal state display method
comprising the steps of:
detecting current states of a plurality of elements of a
printing press;
comparing the detected current state of each element with
a normal state predetermined for the element;
determining on the basis of a comparison result whether
the current state of the element is abnormal
displaying an abnormal state of only an element
determined to be abnormal on the basis of a determination
result; and
selecting a function as an abnormal state display target
from a plurality of functions which are provided in the printing
press and each of said plurality of functions is related to
predetermined ones of said plurality of elements of the printing
press,
wherein said displaying step comprises the step of
displaying an abnormal state of only those elements related to
the function selected in said selecting step.

Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zoll (US 6,240,847 B1, June 5, 2001)
and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 452 (CCPA 1955).
Appeal 2010-003925
Application 11/493, 490

3
Claims 5, 12, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zoll, Gazda, and Mototane (JP 02149865 A, June 8,
1990).
Claims 6, 13, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zoll, Gazda, and Murakami (JP 09071351 A, Mar. 18,
1997).

ISSUE

The issue we are presented with is: Does the combination of Zoll and
In re Gazda disclose selecting a function/device as an abnormal state display
target and displaying only those elements in an abnormal state that are
related to that function/device?

ANALYSIS
1

We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to each of the arguments and the Appellant’s Reply
Brief.

1
If this case undergoes further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to
review the language used by Appellant in claims 2 and 9 to determine
whether a “storage means” as used by Appellant is capable of storing a
“device.” Moreover, the Examiner may wish to further examine the
language in all of the claims relating to the display step, which displays “an
abnormal state of only an element determined to be abnormal” and is
further limited when the claims subsequently recite “wherein said displaying
step comprises the step of displaying an abnormal state of only those
elements related to the function selected.” (Emphasis added).
Appeal 2010-003925
Application 11/493, 490

4
Appellant argues that Zoll merely discloses changing a setting from
displaying a visual representation of an open state to a closed state. App. Br.
10 and 13; Reply Br. 3, 6-7. The Examiner responds that the relevant
passage of Zoll discloses selecting a visual representation of an element of
the printing machine and changing the state of that element. Ans. 16. The
section referred to by Appellant and the Examiner states: “[t]he user can
control the printing machine by using the display … For example … the user
can select the visual representation of one of the printing machine’s
[elements]. This could toggle the state of this element between open and
close.” Zoll col. 4 ll. 1-6. Moreover, Zoll discloses that the visualization
computer may ignore the action selected by the user “to ensure equipment
and personnel safety” to avoid physical danger to the machine or a person.
Zoll col. 4 ll. 7-10.
We agree with the Examiner that the most reasonable interpretation of
this paragraph as viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art is that the system
disclosed by Zoll provides a graphical representation of the machine, from
which someone may select a graphical representation of an element and
control the state of the actual element on the physical machine (as opposed
to simply altering the graphical representation of the machine). Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that Zoll teaches selecting a function (e.g.,
Appeal 2010-003925
Application 11/493, 490

5
open/close gate) or device (e.g., gate or any other one of the devices of the
machine) as an abnormal state display target from a plurality of elements
(switches, sensors, drives, etc.) of the printing press.
2

With respect to claim 2, Appellant also argues that “Zoll only
discloses displaying an abnormal state of one of a plurality of gates of a
printing press” and refers to one example used in Figure 1. App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues that “Zoll develops issues if
abnormalities occur with a plurality of elements related to a plurality of
devices or functions” because the display will be disorderly and illegible. Id.
Finally, Appellant argues that the claims of the present invention allow a
user to narrow the display to elements in selected functions/devices.

App. Br.
13-14; Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner points out that claim 7 of Zoll recites obtaining
information of one or more elements, creating graphical data, and displaying
a visualization of the one or more elements. Ex. Ans. 21. The Examiner also
references portions of Zoll that explain that Zoll is a method/apparatus to
solve the same problem as the present invention and portions of Zoll that
teach narrowing the display to selected functions/devices. Ans. 13-15 and
19-22; see also, e.g., Zoll, col. 3 ll. 56-61.
We find that nothing in Appellant’s claims requires that each
function/device be associated with a plurality of elements. Moreover, we
agree with the Examiner that Zoll is not limited to disclosing selecting and

2
Both Appellant’s Specification and Zoll make it clear that it is the state of
the art for printing machines to include sensors, switches, drives, etc. that
may provide information to a control unit to monitor the status of the
printing machine’s devices and the functions of those devices. See, e.g.,
Spec., p. 12 ll. 15-21and Zoll col. 1 ll. 38-49.
Appeal 2010-003925
Application 11/493, 490

6
displaying only the abnormality of one element; the ability to select and
display various portions of the printing machine is mentioned throughout
Zoll. See, e.g., Zoll, col. 2 ll. 9-18 and 63-65, col. 3 ll. 53-56 and 56-61, col.
5 ll. 18-26, 29-30, and 33-36, col. 6 ll. 1-3 and 18-23.
For the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Zoll and Gazda teaches “selecting a function” and
“displaying an abnormal state of only those elements related to the function”
as recited in independent claim1 and commensurately recited in independent
claim 8. Similarly, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Zoll
and Gazda teaches “storing in a storage means a device” and “display[ing]
an abnormal state of only those elements related to the device” as recited in
independent claim 2 and commensurately recited in independent claim 9. In
addition, Appellant provides no further argument with respect to the
dependent claims other than that they depend from one of independent
claims 1, 2, 8, or 9. App. Br. 11-12 and 14-16. Therefore, we find that the
combination of Zoll and Gazda teaches the limitations of dependent claims
4-7 and 11-22 for the same reasons as identified with respect to independent
claims 1, 2, 8, and 9, from which they each ultimately depend.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-22 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

Appeal 2010-003925
Application 11/493, 490

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Zoll and Gazda is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 12, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Zoll, Gazda, and Mototane is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 13, 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Zoll, Gazda, and Murakami 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

ELD