Ex Parte Hirose et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13404515 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
13/404,515 02/24/2012 Kazuki HIROSE LB-723-3377 3193
27562 7590 12/02/2016
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
EARLES, BRYAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUKI HIROSE, TSUTOMU ARAKI,
RYUTARO TAKAHASHI, and TOMOHIRO FUJII
Appeal 2015-006469
Application 13/404,515
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-006469
Application 13/404,515
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system that “can
switch a display of an image between a planar-view display and a
stereoscopic display” (Spec. 11; Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored therein an information processing program
executed by a computer of a display control apparatus which
displays an image on a display section in either of planar-view
display or stereoscopic display, the information processing
program causing the computer to operate as:
a switching section configured to switch a display setting
which is a setting of whether to perform planar-view display or
stereoscopic display by the display section, in accordance with
an operation of a user;
a setter configured to set image display by the display
section to a state of being restricted to the planar-view display or
a state of not being restricted to the planar-view display; and
a display controller configured to switch the image display
by the display section to the planar-view display or the
stereoscopic display in accordance with the display setting which
is set by the switching section, when the image display by the
display section is set to the state of not being restricted to the
planar-view display, and to cause the display section to perform
planar-view display of an image even if the display setting in
accordance with an operation of a user is a setting to perform
stereoscopic display, when the image display by the display
section is set to the state of being restricted to only the planar-
view display.
2
Appeal 2015-006469
Application 13/404,515
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Yoshida (WO 2010/007787 Al, Jan 21, 2010;
corresponding to US 2011/0187832 Al, Aug. 4, 2011),1 Muzina (US
2011/0172917 Al; July 14, 2011), and King (US 2012/0139816 Al; June 7,
2012).
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Muzina restricts a
personal navigation device to a two-dimensional (2D) display mode (planar
view display) when the device connects to a vehicle cradle port, and allows a
three-dimensional (3D) display mode (stereoscopic display) when a
pedestrian carries the device, thereby teaching setting an image display to a
state of being restricted to a planar-view display or a state of not being
restricted to the planar-view display (stereoscopic view) as claim 1 recites
(Final Act. 4 (citing Muzina 122)). The Examiner further finds Muzina
“does not expressly disclose that the two dimensional display mode is
maintained even if the display setting . . . is a setting to perform stereoscopic
display,” but relies on King for disclosing “the display device has the ability
to override the user’s selections or pre-configured settings,” thus teaching or
suggesting this limitation (Final Act. 5 (citing King 127)).
Appellants contend King does not teach or suggest a 2D display mode
“is maintained even if the display setting in accordance with an operation of
a user is a setting to perform stereoscopic display” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants
1 Throughout this opinion, citations to Yoshida refer to paragraphs in US
2011/0187832.
3
Appeal 2015-006469
Application 13/404,515
assert King only discloses “overriding a selection of a type of a display
device,” not “overriding the user’s selection of a type of display mode”
(App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3). We do not agree.
Rather, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own
(Final Act. 3—18; Ans. 19-23). We provide the following for additional
support. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that King’s router overrides
the user’s selections or pre-configured settings by displaying critical
information closer to the driver’s direct line of sight or by displaying only
critical safety-related visual cues to the driver (see King || 27—29; Ans. 20—
21). That is, King discloses “[tjhose skilled in the art will appreciate that the
router 112 may override the user’s selections or pre-configured settings”
(see King 127), the user’s selections including “the driver’s choice of
display mode” (see King 125), teaching or at least suggesting overriding a
user’s selection of a display mode (Ans. 20-21; Advisory Act. 2 (dated Aug.
15, 2014)). Thus, combining King’s override of a user display mode
selection with Muzina’s teaching of setting a restricted planar-view display
or allowing stereoscopic display suggests causing a display section to
perform planar-view display of an image even if the display setting is in
accordance with an operation of a user to perform stereoscopic display, as
recited in claim 1 (Ans. 20—21; Final Act. 5).
Appellants further contend the Examiner’s combination of Yoshida
and King is improper because Yoshida and King “are concerned with two
completely different aspects of 3D/2D operation” (Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 15).
In particular, Appellants assert one of ordinary skill would not have looked
to King to modify the display control apparatus of Yoshida/Muzina because
a driver’s safety (see King 127) is “not affected by whether the display is
4
Appeal 2015-006469
Application 13/404,515
2D or 3D” as in Yoshida and Muzina (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3). We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments as the Examiner provides articulated
reasoning for combining the teachings of King with those of Yoshida and
Muzina to improve a user’s visual display experience—a concern shared by
King, Yoshida, and Muzina (Ans. 21—22 (citing Yoshida 1776; King 127);
Final Act. 5 (citing Muzina 17); see also Muzina 121).
Thus, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish the claimed
invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We therefore sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 17—19
argued for substantially the same reasons, and dependent claims 4—16 for
which no separate arguments are provided (App. Br. 15).
With respect to dependent claim 2, Appellants contend King does not
teach or suggest a user operation input satisfying a predetermined condition
and “setting of a particular display mode, i.e., ‘the state of not being
restricted to only the planar-view display’”; rather, King’s operation input
effects only “selection of a particular display device” (Reply Br. 4—5). We
are not persuaded. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that King’s
monitored parameters teach an operation input satisfying a predetermined
condition, as required by claim 2 (Ans. 22 (citing King H 21, 25)).
Additionally, as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, King teaches a
user’s operation input sets a display mode that may subsequently be
overridden (see King || 25 (discussing “driver’s choice of display mode”),
27). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Appellants contend the Examiner
relies on Muzina for most of the claimed features except the claim feature of
a display controller restricting display of the image to the planar-view
5
Appeal 2015-006469
Application 13/404,515
display regardless of the display setting by the switching section (Final Act.
6, 7; App. Br. 18). Although the Final Action at page 5 states, with respect
to independent claim 1, Muzina does not teach maintaining a planar-view
display against a user setting to perform stereoscopic display (App. Br. 18),
as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded King in
combination with Muzina and Yoshida does not teach this claim limitation.2
Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 We find the Examiner’s oversight in omitting King from the discussion of
the rejection of claim 3 (Final Act. 6—7) is harmless error. We interpret the
rejection of claim 3 to include the King reference as relied on in rejecting
claim 1, from which claim 3 depends.
6