Ex Parte Kitayama

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

12850726 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/850,726 08/05/2010 Takefumi KITAYAMA
22850 7590 03/22/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
364537US-8 1401
EXAMINER
FIBBI, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte T AKEFUMI KIT A Y AMA
Appeal2017-003346
Application 12/850,726
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-13, 15, and 18-20, which are all of the
pending claims. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Corporation. (App.
Br. 1.)
2 Claims 4, 5, 14, 16, and 17 were canceled in an Amended dated April 24,
2013.
Appeal2017-003346
Application 12/850,726
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he present invention relates to a display
device, and a display method." (Spec. i-f 1.) By way of background,
Appellant describes graphical user interfaces ("GUis") that include
"operation menus, a program guide, a content list, and the like." (Id. i-f 2.)
In purporting to provide a GUI that is easier for a user to see and to select
items, Appellant further describes providing a GUI that incorporates a
stereoscopic display so that a selectable item on the GUI may be displayed
as if it "is popping out of the screen in 3-D." (Id. i-fi-1 3-5.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with the
disputed limitations italicized, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A display control device comprising:
an image generation unit configured to generate
stereoscopic images in a graphical user interface (GUI) to be
displayed on a display panel;
a pop-out amount unit configured to calculate a pop-out
amount indicating a perceived distance that only a portion of the
GUI pops out into space from the display panel;
and
a display controller configured to control display of the
portion of the GUI with the calculated amount of pop out on the
display panel,
wherein the pop-out amount unit calculates the pop-out
amount indicating the perceived distance that the portion of the
GUI pops out into space from the display panel based on a
specific parameter of the portion of the GUI, and wherein the
specific parameter is set based on whether the portion of the GUI
2
Appeal2017-003346
Application 12/850,726
is a user selectable portion or a non-selectable portion and is set
based on analyzing a preference value of a user for that portion
of the GUI, and the pop-out amount unit initially determines
whether the portion of the GUI includes a user preference value,
and if no user reference value has been set for the portion of the
GUI, then the portion of the GUI is displayed with no pop-out
amount, and if the pop-out amount unit determines that the
portion of the GUI includes a user preference value, the pop-out
amount unit calculates a greater pop-out amount for the portion
of the GUI with a higher user preference value than for other
portions also within the GUI with a lower user preference value
prior to a user selection.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Pilat et al. ("Pilat")
Phillips et al. ("Phillips")
Yamamoto et al. ("Yamamoto")
Morris et al. ("Morris")
Majko
Masuda et al. ("Masuda")
Alyshev et al. ("Alyshev")
US 2003/0084445 Al
US 2003/0126607 Al
US 2007/0266411 Al
US 2008/0320523 Al
US 2009/0182727 Al
US 2009/0244258 Al
US 2011/0050687 Al
REJECTIONS
May 1, 2003
July 3, 2003
Nov. 15, 2007
Dec. 25, 2008
July 16, 2009
Oct. 1, 2009
Mar. 3, 2011
Claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Masuda and Alyshev. (Final Act. 2-10.)
Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuda, Alyshev, and Pilat. (Final Act. 10-11.)
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuda, Alyshev, and Majko. (Final Act. 13-14.)
3
Appeal2017-003346
Application 12/850,726
Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuda, Alyshev, and Yamamoto. (Final Act. 11-13.)
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuda, Alyshev, and Morris. (Final Act. 14--16.)
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuda, Alyshev, and Phillips. (Final Act. 16-17.)
ISSUE
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Masuda
and Alyshev teaches or suggests
wherein the specific parameter is set based on whether the
portion of the GUI is a user selectable portion or a non-selectable
portion and is set based on analyzing a preference value of a user
for that portion of the GUI, and the pop-out amount unit initially
determines whether the portion of the GUI includes a user
preference value, and if no user reference value has been set for
the portion of the GUI, then the portion of the GUI is displayed
with no pop-out amount, and if the pop-out amount unit
determines that the portion of the GUI includes a user preference
value, the pop-out amount unit calculates a greater pop-out
amount for the portion of the GUI with a higher user preference
value than for other portions also within the GUI with a lower
user preference value prior to a user selection,
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 13.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
Masuda teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1, except for the
disputed portion of claim 1, for which the Examiner combines Masuda's
4
Appeal2017-003346
Application 12/850,726
teachings with those of Alyshev. (Final Act. 2-7.) We agree with and adopt
as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in
the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal was taken. To
that extent, we have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection is in error because Masuda
"teaches contrary objectives" to the features recited in claim 1 and, thus, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Masuda with
Alyshev to achieve the claimed invention. (App. Br. 5---6.) In particular,
Appellant asserts that "[t]he claimed device and method make
determinations how much to pop-out certain portions of the GUI before a
user makes any selection on the GUI." (Id. at 5 (emphasis added).)
Appellant then argues "Masuda does not even address considering the user
preference values for portions of a GUI prior to selection of portions in the
GUI." (Id. at 6.) Rather, "Masuda discloses portions of a display that are
already selected can be stereoscopically displayed." (Id.)
First, we disagree that Masuda's teachings are contrary to the claimed
invention. A reference may be said to "teach away" when "a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Although we agree that Masuda teaches
stereoscopically displaying portions of a display that have been selected by a
user (Masuda i-f 64), such teachings are not contrary to Appellant's claimed
invention. In particular, claim 1 does not exclude stereoscopically
displaying portions of a GUI that have been selected by a user; claim 1 is, in
5
Appeal2017-003346
Application 12/850,726
fact, silent on whether the portion of the GUI that "pops out into space from
the display panel" has been selected by a user. The portion of claim 1 that
mentions "user selection" states: "the pop-out amount unit calculates a
greater pop-out amount for the portion of the GUI with a higher user
preference value than for other portions also within the GUI with a lower
user preference value prior to a user selection." (Claims App'x I (emphasis
added).) The phrase "prior to a user selection" does not necessarily require
that any portion of the display has the pop-out amount applied prior to a user
selection. Rather, a reasonable interpretation of that phrase, in the context of
claim 1, is that it modifies the timing of the calculation of the "pop-out
amount" by the "pop-out amount unit." In tum, the calculation of the
appropriate pop-out amount prior to user selection is not contrary to popping
out a portion of the display that has been selected by a user, as disclosed by
Masuda. That is, broadly but reasonably construed, claim 1 encompasses
the situation, as disclosed by Masuda, in which user selection triggers a pop
out and the amount of the pop out has been calculated prior to the user
selection. (See Masuda i-fi-1 64, 81, 83.) The Examiner's findings in that
regard are, therefore, not in error. (See Final Act. 2--4.)
Appellant's arguments regarding Masuda also amount to attacking
Masuda singly for lacking a teaching (setting a pop-out amount for a portion
of a GUI based on a preference value of a user for that portion of the GUI)
that the Examiner relied on a combination of references to show. (See App.
Br. 6-7.) As Appellant later acknowledges, however, the Examiner points to
Alyshev for this limitation. (See id. at 7; see also Final Act. 5-7.) It is well
established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
6
Appeal2017-003346
Application 12/850,726
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant further argues the Examiner's rejection is in error because
"[t]he applied art does not disclose or suggest features directed to
determining whether a program includes a user preference value." (Reply
Br. 4 (emphasis added); see also App. Br. 5-7.) Appellant's argument
alludes to functionality illustrated in Figures 5A and 5B of Appellant's
Specification, in which the amount of "pop-out" of a portion of the GUI
depends on the viewer's interest in the content (e.g., a television program)
represented by the graphic displayed on the GUI. (Spec. Figs. 5A and 5B,
boxes 234 and 236; id. i-f 46 and Fig. 13.) Figures 5A and 5B of Appellant's
Specification are reproduced below:
FIG.SA FIG.SB
Figures 5A and 5B of Appellant's Specification, reproduced above,
"are explanatory diagrams showing a screen 231 on which a content
selection menu 232 is displayed by applying the exemplary embodiment."
(Spec. i-f 6.) As illustrated in these figures, the amount of pop out of box 236
in Figure 5B is greater than the amount of pop out of box 234 in Figure 5A
because, according to the accompanying written description, "the degree of
7
Appeal2017-003346
Application 12/850,726
interest (preference value) of a viewer of the broadcast program 23 6 is
higher than the degree of interest (preference value) of a viewer of the
broadcast program 234." (See id. i-f 46.)
Appellants' argument that the prior art fails to render obvious
determining whether a program includes a user preference value is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. See
In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) ("[A]ppellant's arguments fail
from the outset because ... they are not based on limitations appearing in
the claims."). Nothing in claim 1 requires an amount of pop out to be based
on a user's preference for a "program." Rather, claim 1 refers only to a
"preference value of a user" for a particular "portion of the GUI."
Moreover, although a portion of the GUI (such as box 234 in Figure 5A)
may graphically represent a "broadcast program" (or other content - see
Spec. i-f 44), that graphical representation is not itself a "program," according
to Appellant's Specification. Appellant's Specification differentiates an
image on the GUI (which is a portion of the GUI) from the content
represented by that image: "A fourth aspect is an example of a GUI that
changes pop-out display of an image representing a content, according to
the degree of interest (preference value) of a user for the content." (Spec.
i-f 44.) Although Appellant's Specification discusses tying the amount of
pop-out of a portion of the GUI (image) based on the user's preference for a
program represented by that image (id. i-fi-144--47 and Fig. 13), this feature is
not recited in Appellant's claims and, thus, cannot serve to differentiate over
the cited art.
In rejecting the claims over the combination of Masuda and Alyshev,
the Examiner reads "preference value of a user for that portion of the GUI"
8
Appeal2017-003346
Application 12/850,726
on Alyshev's disclosure of a user-selectable value for the amount of pop-out
of an image on the GUI. (See Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 4--5.) The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Alyshev discloses stereoscopic 3D effects ("pop-out" as
claimed) may be selectively applied to items on a display (a "portion of the
GUI" as claimed), and application of these 3D effects is determined based
on "rules" that apply "parameters," such as user input. (Id.) The Examiner
also finds, and we agree, Alyshev discloses that the rules for the 3D effects
to be applied to a GUI may be customized by a user. (Final Act. 7 (citing
Alyshev i-fi-1200-202).) Thus, the Examiner finds Alyshev teaches
calculation of a pop out amount based on a "specific parameter" that is "set
based on analyzing a preference value of a user for that portion of the GUI,"
as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 5-7.) The Examiner's findings are
supported by the teachings of Alyshev and are consistent with the scope of
the claims, broadly but reasonably construed.
We additionally note that, within the scope of the Examiner's findings
is Alyshev's teaching that the "the z-axis prominence" (that is, the amount of
pop-out) "may depend on [the] history of use" of particular desktop icons
(that is, images on the GUI). (Alyshev i-f 183; see also id. i-f 155: "[T]he
relative z-axis prominence of objects within such a display may be
determined by factors such as sponsorship/advertising, popularity among a
network user community, history of selection/use by an individual user,
etc.") Thus, even if the claims did require setting an amount of "pop-out"
based on user preference for a program represented by an image ("portion of
the GUI"), such a limitation would be within the teachings or suggestion of
Alyshev. For example, a "preference value of a user" for a program
9
Appeal2017-003346
Application 12/850,726
represented by an icon in Alyshev would be suggested by a greater history of
"selection/use" of that program by an individual user. (See id.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 or of claims
7, 8, 13, 19, and 20, which were rejected on the same basis and are argued
collectively with claim 1. (See App. Br. 4--5.) We likewise sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3, 6, 9--12, 15, and
18 over the additionally cited prior art listed above. Appellant has not
particularly pointed out errors in the Examiner's reasoning regarding the
additional teachings of the further cited art, but argues all claims collectively
with claim 1. (J d.)
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-13,
15, and 18-20 are 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
10