Ex Parte Morishita

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 24, 2016

11454535 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111454,535 06/16/2006 79326 7590 06/28/2016 Fujitsu Technology and Business of America, Inc, 2318 Mill Road, Suite 1010 Alexandria, VA 22314 Ryohei Morishita 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. 05-53120 7517 EXAMINER GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2016 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): fpc-mailroom@us.fujitsu.com eoamule@system.foundationip.com tiep.nguyen@us.fujitsu.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RYOHEI MORISHITA Appeal2014-007001 Application 11/454,535 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-9 and 14--17. 1 Claims 10-13 are cancelled. App. Br. 18. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 In this Opinion, we refer to the original Specification ("Spec.," filed June 16, 2006); the Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed May 20, 2013); Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed January 21, 2014); the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 3, 2014); and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 3, 2014). Appeal2014-007001 Application 11/454,535 THE INVENTION Appellant's invention is directed to "providing the relation between elements while reflecting the intent of user as much as possible, in a graphics editing technology." Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A computer readable, non-transitory medium storing a graphics editing program, which when executed by a computer causes the computer to perform a method, the method compnsmg: arranging elements interactively with an input device on a display device, the arranging including introducing a new element to an arrangement; specifying an element most recently arranged prior to introducing the new element when a user interactively arranges the new element; associating the new element only with the element most recently arranged prior to introducing the new element to provide a relation therebetween; and displaying on the display device a line indicating the relation between the new element and the element most recently arranged prior to introducing the new element, the line being introduced on the display device to connect the element most recently arranged prior to introducing the new element and the new element by the line in response to introduction of the new element on the display device. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 14--17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Saitou (US 2002/0154117 Al; Oct. 24, 2002). Non-Final Act. 2-6. 2 Appeal2014-007001 Application 11/454,535 Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saitou and Stradley (US 6,392,651 Bl; May 21, 2002). Non-Final Act. 6-7. ANALYSIS2 Claims 1--8 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Saitou's Figures 5A and 9C teaches associating a new element "only with the element most recently arranged." Non-Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 8 (citing Saitou Figs. 5B and 9C). The Examiner also refers to Saitou Figures 2A-2E finding figure 2A shows the relationship between A-C, figure 2B introduces a new element, figure 2C displays a relation with the new element with the most recently arranged element A, and introduces the lines in figures 2D showing the connection of the new element and the most recently arranged prior to the new element. Ans. 9. Appellant argues, "In FIG. 5B, the new object is connected to both Object A and Object B." App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 14. We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner has erred. Saitou Figure 5A does not show a "new" element at all and Figure 5B shows a "new" element connected (associated) with both elements "A" and "B." Furthermore, the Examiner has not explained how the data tables of Figures 9 A-9C teach a "new" element associated with only the most recently 2 Appellant raises additional issues in the Briefs regarding the rejections. We are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue discussed infra, which is dispositive as to the rejection of all claims. Therefore, we do not reach the additional issues. 3 Appeal2014-007001 Application 11/454,535 arranged element. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). While the Examiner's assertions may or may not offer reasonable suggestions based on the disclosures of Saitou, we agree with Appellant that Saitou provides no teaching, express or inherent, of "associating the new element only with the element most recently arranged" as recited in claim 1. In like manner, the Examiner fails to explain how Saitou Figures 2A- 2E teach the above disputed limitation. Although Saitou Figure 2C appears to disclose some point in time of processing at which a "new" element is associated with only a single element ("A"), the Examiner has not shown that this element "A" is the most recently arranged element as claimed. Thus, on the record before us, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 or the rejection of claims 3-7 dependent therefrom. Claims 14-17 Independent claim 14 recites a computer-readable medium for providing similar functionality to the method steps of claim 1. Independent claim 16 recites another method with similar functionality to that of claim 1. The Examiner rejects both claims applying similar reasoning to that of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 5---6. Thus, for the same reasons as claim 1, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of independent claims 14 and 16 as well as claims 15 and 1 7 dependent therefrom. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14--17. 4 Appeal2014-007001 Application 11/454,535 Claim 9 Independent claim 9 is an apparatus claim reciting a display and various "sections" that perform functions similar to the steps of independent method claim 1. One such "section" is an element relation editing section "to associate the new element only with the element specified by the element specifying section to provide a relation therebetween." The Examiner rejects claim 9 for the same reasons as claim 1 (Non-Final Act. 5) and, for the same reasons as claim 1, we are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner has erred and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9. The Examiner may wish to consider whether the claim 9 recitations of "section" recite sufficient structure or, instead, should be interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, sixth paragraph (pre-AIA) as means-plus- function limitations. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015). If appropriately interpreted as mean-plus-function elements, the Examiner may wish to further consider whether Appellant's specification adequately discloses a structure for performing the recited function. For example, the corresponding structure of a means-plus-function limitation must be more than simply a general-purpose computer or microprocessor to avoid pure functional claiming. Aristocrat Techs. Aust!. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521F.3d1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Specification must disclose the "algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). 5 Appeal2014-007001 Application 11/454,535 Claims 2 and 8 Claims 2 and 8, dependent from claim 1, are rejected as obvious over Saitou in combination with Stradley. Non-Final Act. 6-7. Stradley is not relied upon to remedy the above deficiencies of Saitou and, thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 8 for the same reasons as claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 14--1 7 is reversed. REVERSED 6