Ex Parte Fujino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 9, 2016

11893926 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111893,926 757 7590 BGL P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 08/17/2007 02/10/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hiroyuki Fujino 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. 113331189 7085 EXAMINER NAGPAUL, JYOTI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1798 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/10/2016 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 HIROYUKI FUJINO, KYOZO FUJITA, and MITSUYO ITO Appeal2014-004649 Application 11/893,926 Technology Center 1700 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1 and 3-20 of Application 11/893,926 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (Mar. 19, 2013). Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE. 1 Sysmex Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-004649 Application 11/893,926 BACKGROUND The '926 Application describes a sample analyzer equipped with a display screen for displaying detailed information about reagents. Spec. iii! 3--4. The information can include reagent names, lot or serial numbers, and arrangement within the sample analyzer. Id. Claim 1 is representative of the '926 Application's claims and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. A sample analyzer comprising: a reagent arranging section for arrangmg a plurality of reagents; an analyzing section for analyzing a measurement sample prepared by mixing a sample and the reagent arranged on the reagent arranging section; a display device; an input device; and a display control section that concurrently displays, on the display device, a reagent arrangement displaying region, a reagent detailed information displaying region, and an operation displaying region; wherein the reagent arrangement displaying region displays a plurality of reagent marks inscribed with a reagent name that displays a name of a particular reagent, wherein the reagent marks are in an arrangement corresponding to an arrangement of each reagent on the reagent arranging section and are displayed in a manner selectable with the input device; wherein the reagent detailed information displaying region displays detailed information related to the reagent corresponding to the reagent mark selected with the input device on the display device, wherein the operation displaying region displays options for adding, replacing, or editing to the reagent corresponding to the 2 Appeal2014-004649 Application 11/893,926 reagent mark selected with the input device on the display device. App. Br. 10. REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 3, 5-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of McKeever, 2 Lefebvre, 3 and Rhett. 4 Final Act. 3. 2. Claims 4, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of McKeever, Lefebvre, and Babson.5 Final Act. 17. DISCUSSION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5-14, and 17-20 as unpatentable over the combination of McKeever, Lefebvre, and Rhett. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also rejected claims 4, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over the combination of McKeever, Lefebvre, and Babson. Id. at 17. Appellants argue for the reversal of these rejections on the basis of limitations present in independent claims 1, 11, and 18. See Appeal Br. 5-9. We, therefore, limit our analysis to claims 1, 11, and 18. Dependent claims 3-10, 12-17, 19, and 2 US 2005/0013736 Al, published Jan. 20, 2005. 3 US 2006/0173575 Al, published Aug. 3, 2006. 4 US 2002/0116132 Al, published Aug. 22, 2002. 5 US Patent No. 5,316,726, issued May 31, 1994. 3 Appeal2014-004649 Application 11/893,926 20 will stand or fall with their respective parent independent claims. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 1 is directed to a sample analyzer comprising a reagent arrangement displaying region that displays "a plurality of reagent marks ... displayed in a manner selectable with the input device." Similarly, claims 11 and 18 are directed to a sample analyzer comprising a reagent managing screen that displays "each reagent mark ... in a manner selectable by the input device." Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that the combination of McKeever and Lefebvre (with either Rhett or Babson) describes or suggests such a display with selectable reagent marks. Appeal Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2--4. In rejecting claims 1, 11, and 18, the Examiner relied on Figure 17 of Lefebvre. Figure 17 is reproduced below: 1100-.... ,..-----------------------.l'V!= ' TiSSlieTek Slide Slal~IAÂ§ Sys1em ~ FIG. 17 ~\' Tissue-Tekâ€¢6"nJe"' ,!l.uromil.Ji!dlilbi-ott ~CJo: 3'e!-tl Pfl0Cei5TIITI';!fb;m!!ll'lli11J~ :W.:IJ-0:00 Cuner.tSte:o: t SW!l' Tirre1 Ro;i~ilinlri.g; 00:-00:0S EllDOOOOD F EllllOOOO f ~ ~ I Remove I Stll1JtHm waste 1710 Figure 17 depicts "display 1700[, which] includes a circular graphical representation of cartridges [on the left] and an array of retaining trays [on the right]." Lefebvre, ,-i 115. 4 Appeal2014-004649 Application 11/893,926 The Examiner found that Lefebvre discloses that reagent marks are displayed in a manner selectable because "reagent '6' is selected in Fig. 17 and Lefebvre also teaches the reagents can be selected to create, edit or delete the reagents, [and,] therefore [,] the reagent marks must be 'selectable' in some way if detailed information is to be displayed." Final Act. 5. The Examiner further found that Lefebvre teaches that a user may select toggle switch 1710 to display "the reagent arranging section ... in a manner 'selectable' with a[n] input device as claimed." Ans. 18. These findings are insufficient to support the Examiner's rejection for two reasons. First, the finding regarding the reagent arranging section is inconsistent with the language of claims 1, 11, and 18, which require the reagent marks to be displayed in a manner selectable by the input device. As Appellants argue, see Reply Br. 3, the toggle switch is not a reagent mark as claimed. Second, the Examiner has not adequately explained how Lefebvre describes or suggests that each enumerated circle, on the left side of the interface shown in Figure 17, is selectable. The Examiner's cited disclosures in Lefebvre, see Final Act. 5, are silent regarding how a user can select any of the enumerated circles displayed in Figure 17. We, therefore, reverse the rejections of claims 1 and 3-20 of the '926 Application because the Examiner has not properly made out a prima facie case of obviousness. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejections of claims 1 and 3-20 of the '926 Application. REVERSED 5