Ex Parte Ohnishi

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 8, 2016

12255953 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/255,953 10/22/2008 27562 7590 04/12/2016 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Naonori OHNISHI 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. RYM-723-2445 4292 EXAMINER DA VIS, TONY 0 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2693 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/12/2016 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 NAONORI OHNISHI Appeal2014-004191 Application 12/255,953 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-004191 Application 12/255,953 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 19 and 21-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. The invention relates to controlling an image displayed on an image processing device according to input coordinates from a user's operation (Spec. 1:8-10, 12:10-23). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory storage medium storing an image processing program executed by a computer interacting with an input portion and a display portion, said image processing program causmg said computer to execute instructions compnsmg: detecting a coordinate value input through an operation of said input portion; obtaining a prescribed coordinate value among detected said coordinate values as a first object arranged coordinate value and displaying a first object at a corresponding position on said display portion based on the first object arranged coordinate value; obtaining a continuously-input coordinate value which is a subsequent coordinate value, received through a continuous operation of said input portion, to said first object arranged coordinate value among said detected coordinate values; and changing an orientation of said first object displayed on said display portion based on a collection of continuously-input coordinate values received through the continuous operation of said input portion. 2 Appeal2014-004191 Application 12/255,953 REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wilson US 2006/0007123 Al Jan. 12, 2006 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1-19 and 21-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§102(b) as being anticipated by Wilson. ANALYSIS Claims 1-16, 18, 21, 23, and 25-27 The Examiner finds Wilson discloses every limitation of claim 1 (Final Act. 4--5). Appellant contends Wilson fails to disclose "changing the orientation of said first object displayed on said display portion based on a collection of continuously-input coordinate values," as recited in claim 1, because Wilson does not change the orientation of the painted object on Wilson's interactive display (App. Br. 18-21). Rather, "only the shape of the object changes when the paint brush is rotated by changing the direction and width of the brush stroke. When the paint brush is rotated, the corresponding portion of the image ... maintains the same orientation and does not change the orientation." (App. Br. 20). We agree with Appellant. Wilson discloses an interactive display on which a user may drag a paintbrush to cause the display to show an image representing the path traced by the paintbrush (see Wilson, Figs. 4A--4C). The Examiner finds Wilson's changing the paintbrush's orientation during a stroke, thus creating 3 Appeal2014-004191 Application 12/255,953 an arc in the displayed image, meets the limitation of "changing the orientation of said first object," as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 13-15). However, we find the user's manipulation of the paintbrush merely changes the shape of the painted object by enlarging it, and does not change the orientation of the object that has already been displayed. Claim 1 recites "displaying a first object at a corresponding position on said display portion" and then "changing an orientation of said first object displayed." Accordingly, the language of the claim requires a change in orientation of the already displayed object, not a change in orientation between a newly drawn portion and the previously displayed object. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 18, 21, 23, and 27 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2-16, 25, and 26 for similar reasons. Claims 17, 19, 22, and 24 Appellant contends Wilson fails to disclose "wherein an orientation of each of said at least one object being successively determined in accordance with the trail on said display portion," as recited in claim 17, because "[a]t best, Figs. 5A---C [of Wilson] show a sequence of points tracking movement of the paintbrush along the display. However, Wilson is clear that the items shown in Figs. 5A---C are representations in phantom form and are not actually displayed as a trail on the display of Wilson." (App. Br. 22). We disagree with Appellant. Wilson discloses that the interactive display captures frames at intervals of the paintbrush as it sweeps across the display surface (see Wilson, i-fi-175-77; Figs. 5A-5C, 7 A-7C). This results in a number of 4 Appeal2014-004191 Application 12/255,953 components 702 which are represented as ellipses 710 (Wilson, if 78; Fig. 7B). A composite image is formed by filling in the gaps between the ellipses 710 to create an image like the one shown in Figures 4A--4C (Wilson, iii! 78-81, Figs. 7D-7G). We find that Wilson's ellipses 710 produced by the capture of the paintbrush at intervals as it traces a path on the surface of the display meets the claim 17 limitation of "successively displaying at least one object in accordance with a trail, formed based on a collection of continuously-input coordinate values." Further, we find the change in orientation from one ellipse to the next as shown in Wilson's Figure 7B meets the claim 17 limitation of "wherein an orientation of each of said at least one object being successively determined in accordance with the trail on said display portion." Appellant's argument that "the items shown in Figs. 5A---C are representations in phantom form and are not actually displayed as a trail on the display of Wilson" (App. Br. 22) is not persuasive. Wilson discloses that only the "user's hand 404 and brush 406 are represented in phantom form" because "interactive display surface 400 does not respond to user's hand 404 and to any portion other than the tip of paint brush 406 touching the interactive display surface" (Wilson, if 60). The ellipses 710 are based on captured frames of the tip of the paintbrush touching the interactive display (see Wilson, if 78), and are thus not represented merely in phantom form in Wilson. Appellant further argues that Wilson's Figure 9A does not show objects are displayed in accordance with a trail, the orientation of each object being determined in accordance with the trail (Reply Br. 5), is also not persuasive. As discussed above, Wilson discloses ellipses 710 that are 5 Appeal2014-004191 Application 12/255,953 oriented in accordance with the path, or "trail," of the paintbrush (see Wilson, i-f 75; Fig. 7B). We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 17, and independent claims 19, 22, and 24 not specifically argued separately. CONCLUSIONS Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1- 16, 18, 21, 23, and 25-27, but did not err in rejecting claims 17, 19, 22, and 24. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-16, 18, 21, 23, and 25-27 is reversed, and the Examiner's rejection of claims 17, 19, 22, and 24 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6