Ex Parte Yamamoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13416569 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/416,569 03/09/2012
60803 7590
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
08/31/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kazuyuki Yamamoto
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.
1946-0405 3448
EXAMINER
BUTTRAM, ALAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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 KAZUYUKI YAMAMOTO, AKIHIRO KOMORI, HIROYUKI
MIZUNUMA, IKUO YAMANO, and NARIAKI SATO
Appeal2015-005961
Application 13/416,569 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Sony Corporation. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2015-005961
Application 13/416,569
Invention
The claimed invention relates to a portable electronic device including
a touch sensor which acquires operation information input by an operation
subject based on an operation performed by an operator on an operation
surface. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claims 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. An electronic device comprising:
an operation information acquisition section which acquires
operation information input by an operation subject based on an
operation performed by an operator on an operation surface;
an image processing section which generates a picture image on
which a picture of the operation subject is reflected, based on the
operation information, wherein the picture image comprises a
representative point within the picture image that represents a peak
value of the operation subject; and
an image generation section which generates an image in which
the picture image is superimposed on an original image.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4-5 and 16-19 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigdor et al. (Lucid touch: A See-
Through Mobile Device) and Gillespie et al. (US Pub 2009/0174675 Al;
July 9, 2009).
Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, and Choi et al. (US Pub 2011 /0267291
Al; Nov. 3, 2011).
2
Appeal2015-005961
Application 13/416,569
Claims 6-7 and 11-12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, and Jang et al. (US Pub 2011
/0080359 Al; Apr. 7, 2011).
Claim 8 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, W eishauptet al. (US Pub
2012/0062474 Al; Mar. 15, 2012, and Osoinach et al. (US Patent 8,558,802
B2; Oct. 15, 2013).
Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, and Roberts (US Pub 2003/0206162
Al; Nov. 6, 2003).
Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, Jang, Roberts, and Kim et al. (US Pub
2010/0153876 Al; June 17, 2010).
Claim 13 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, Jang, and Bong (US Pub
2010/0005390 Al: Jan. 7, 2010).
Claim 14 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, Jang, and Hinckley et al. (US Pub 2011
/0185320 Al; July 28, 2011).
Claim 15 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, Jang, Bong, and Morrison et al. (US
Patent 8,203,535 B2; June 19, 2012).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
3
Appeal2015-005961
Application 13/416,569
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Section 103 - Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 1
because the combination of Wigdor and Gillespie fails to teach or suggest "a
picture image on which a picture of the operation subject is reflected, based
on the operation information, wherein the picture image comprises a
representative point within the picture image that represents a peak value of
the operation subject." App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 4--8. Appellants argue
that although Wigdor discloses "a picture image of an operation subject"
with "touch-cursors," Wigdor fails to teach or suggest that "the picture
image comprises a representative point within the picture image that
represents a peak value of the operation subject," as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 14 (citing Wigdor, Fig. 9). Appellants further argue that Gillespie does
not teach or suggest "a picture of the operation subject," as Gillespie merely
disclosures X-axis profile 112 and Y-axis profile 120 which are conceptual
and not visible to a user, and that none of Gillespie's "distinct peaks 114 and
116 within bumps 119 and 139" are actually displayed as the claimed
"picture of the operation subject." App. Br. 15, 16 (citing Gillespie, Fig. 1; i-f
30).
Appellants' arguments do not show error because they do not address
the Examiner's findings. Here, the Examiner relies on Wigdor, not
4
Appeal2015-005961
Application 13/416,569
Gillespie, to teach the claimed "picture of the operation subject." Ans. 21.
Moreover, Appellants agree Wigdor discloses "a picture image of an
operation subject" with "touch-cursors." App. Br. 14. The Examiner uses
Gillespie to teach the capacitive peak value of a touch point. Ans. 20, 21
(citing Gillespie, Fig, 1; i-f 30).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Wigdor and Gillespie teaches
or suggests "a picture image on which a picture of the operation subject is
reflected, based on the operation information, wherein the picture image
comprises a representative point within the picture image that represents a
peak value of the operation subject," as recited in independent claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Claims 2-18
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to claims 2-18. See App. Br. 17-24. Appellants'
arguments with respect to these claims merely repeat the same or similar
arguments already raised or merely recite the language of the particular
claim and assert the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest the
claim limitations. Without more, however, such contentions fail to
constitute a separate issue of patentability.
We, therefore, are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more substantive
arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.").
5
Appeal2015-005961
Application 13/416,569
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6