Ex Parte Kashiwagi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 9, 2018

14465576 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2018)

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. 14/465,576 08/21/2014 Takashi Kashiwagi 9333-758 IWP13033US 3112 74989 7590 BGL/Alpine P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 03/09/2018 EXAMINER CHUNG, MONG-SHUNE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2018 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 TAKASHI KASHIWAGI and YU SAGI Appeal 2017-007526 Application 14/465,576 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3—7. Claim 2 has been cancelled. App. Br. 10 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alpine Electronics, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-007526 Application 14/465,576 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants ’ Invention Appellants’ invention generally relates to an electronic book apparatus having a page feeding function for feeding multiple pages at a time and displaying a page. Spec. 13. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the claimed invention, reads as follows: 1. An electronic book apparatus comprising: an already-read information giving unit configured to provide already-read information indicating an already-viewed state of a page of an electronic book that is rendered to a user; and a page feeding processing unit configured to, in accordance with a page feeding operation performed by the user, perform page feeding processing to feed multiple pages from a currently-displayed page that are within a range of pages to which the already-read information giving unit provides already- read information indicating that the page of the electronic book has been rendered to the user; wherein in a case where the user performs the page feeding operation for feeding pages from the currently-displayed already-read page to an unread page to which the already-read giving unit does not provide the already-read information indicating that the page of the electronic book has been rendered to the user, the page feeding processing unit stops the page feeding processing at a last page of already-read pages to which the already-read information is given. References The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Keohane US 2009/0106688 A1 Apr. 23,2009 Jangetal. US 2013/0117702 A1 May 9,2013 Seo et al. US 2013/0321340 A1 Dec. 5, 2013 2 Appeal 2017-007526 Application 14/465,576 Rejections Claims 1, 3, and 5—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Jang and Keohane. Final Act. 6—10. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Jang, Keohane, and Seo. Final Act. 10-11. ANALYSIS Appellants contend the combination of Jang and Keohane does not teach or suggest wherein in a case where the user performs the page feeding operation for feeding pages from the currently-displayed already-read page to an unread page to which the already-read giving unit does not provide the already-read information indicating that the page of the electronic book has been rendered to the user, the page feeding processing unit stops the page feeding processing at a last page of already-read pages to which the already-read information is given, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 4—6. Appellants argue Keohane fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations because “Keohane is not directed to an electronic book reader.” App. Br. 5. In this regard, Appellants argue the Examiner’s construction of “electronic book reader” as “any electronic device capable of presenting text or graphic content for a reader to consume” (see Final Act. 3) is unreasonable because “[ujnder this definition, a desktop computer utilizing an internet browser to present content from cnn.com ... or a smartphone utilizing a messaging application to present a text message would be an electronic book reader” and “one of skill in the art would not consider these two instances to be electronic book readers.” App. Br. 5. 3 Appeal 2017-007526 Application 14/465,576 Appellants further argue the cited references fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitations because “Keohane does not utilize information related to whether a vase of an electronic book has been read to prevent the page feeding processing unit from feeding unread pages.” App. Br. 6. Appellants acknowledge Keohane teaches placing “a hard anchor in text to prevent a user from scrolling past the hard anchor in a window of text.” App. Br. 6. Appellants argue, however, “[a]n anchor in text is not the same as information related to whether a page of an electronic book has been read” and “[bjecause Keohane does not teach that the displayed content is a page of an electronic book, Keohane necessarily does not teach utilizing information related to whether a page of an electronic book has been read to prevent the page feeding processing unit from feeding unread pages.” App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 4—5. Additionally, Appellants argue the following: Even if Jang teaches an electronic book reader, the Examiner has already acknowledged that Jang does not teach an electronic book reader that performs the element at issue that specifically relates to an electronic book reader. Keohane does not teach or suggest an electronic book reader where, when a user performs a page feeding operation for feeding pages from a currently-displayed already-read page to an unread page to which the already-read giving unit does not provide already-read information indicating that the vase of the electronic book has been rendered to the user, the page feeding processing unit stops the page feeding processing at a last page of the already-read pages to which the already-read information is given. Reply Br. 5. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 4 Appeal 2017-007526 Application 14/465,576 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner finds Jang teaches an electronic book reader that provides information regarding read and non read pages of content, where the user can navigate to different pages via a scroll bar.” Final Act. 7 (citing Jang 136). The Examiner finds Jang teaches a user can use the scroll bar to initiate a page skip operation to move between moving between a current page and a previous page. Id. (citing Jang, Fig. 8; Tflf 39, 61). The Examiner finds Keohane teaches a system that determines when a user is reading a displayed content and applies a hard anchor that will stop the scrolling by the user when a last line of the displayed content reaches a desired position. Final Act. 8 (citing Keohane, Figs. 3, 6; 39-41, 46). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes the combination of Jang and Keohane teaches or suggests the disputed limitations because: [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang with the teachings of Keohane, because to do so improves the electronic book reader of Jang with the content reader of Keohane by using [a] known method of providing a stopping point that automatically stops the scrolling when the last line of the previously read text is located [at] a specific position so that the user won’t overshoot and hav[e] to scroll back to find the last line of the previously read text as suggested by Keohane, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Final Act. 8 (citing Keohane ^fl[ 10—11) (internal citation omitted). Appellants’ arguments do not address the combined teachings of the references. Instead, Appellants attack the references singly for lacking teachings that the Examiner relied on a combination of references to show. Appellants’ arguments amount to allegations that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, rather than 5 Appeal 2017-007526 Application 14/465,576 disputing what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. However, 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 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. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (citations omitted). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Jang and Keohane teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1; and claims 3—7, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 7—8. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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