Ex Parte OHTA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

12614720 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2017)

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.
12/614,720 11/09/2009 Keizo OHTA MEN-723-2668 9121
27562 7590 08/25/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
SHAPIRO, LEONID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2017 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 KEIZO OHTA
Appeal 2015-005679
Application 12/614,720
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-005679
Application 12/614,720
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 16—18 are independent claims. The claims relate
generally to coordinate calculation of inputs from a pointing device and,
more specifically, to detecting detection coordinates and calculating detailed
coordinates that have more accuracy than the detection coordinates. Spec.
1, 7—10. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored therein an information processing program
comprising instructions to be executed by a computer in
an information processing device capable of acquiring a
detection result from a pointing device for detecting input
to a predetermined instruction plane, wherein,
the pointing device detects a point in one of a
plurality of unit areas at which input was made, the unit
areas being arranged in a matrix in the instruction plane,
the information processing program causing the
computer to perform:
repeatedly acquiring detection coordinates for
locating the unit area detected by the pointing device; and
repeatedly calculating, in response to the
acquisition of the detection coordinates by the acquisition,
detailed coordinates by which a point in the instruction
plane is represented with higher resolution than the
detection coordinates provide, and
calculating detailed coordinates indicating a point in
the direction of a unit area indicated by previously
acquired detection coordinates, as viewed from a
predetermined reference point within a unit area indicated
by currently acquired detection coordinates.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 11—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Wei (US 2010/0027912 Al; Feb. 4, 2010). Non-Final Act. 2—
4.
2
Appeal 2015-005679
Application 12/614,720
Claims 2—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
in view of Wei and Yoshida (US 2009/0091530 Al; Apr. 9, 2009). Non-
Final Act. 4.
OPINION
The Examiner finds Wei discloses every limitation in independent
claims 1 and 16—18 as well as the additional limitations recited in dependent
claims 11—15 and 19. Non-Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 3^4. The Examiner finds
the combination of Wei and Yoshida teaches or suggests the subject matter
recited in dependent claims 2—10, each of which ultimately depends from
independent claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 4—5.
Appellant argues Wei does not disclose “calculating detailed
coordinates indicating a point in the direction of a unit area indicated by
previously acquired detection coordinates, as viewed from a predetermined
reference point within a unit area indicated by currently acquired detection
coordinates” (hereinafter referred to as the calculating detailed coordinates
step), as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 16—18. App. Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 1, 4—6. Appellant
asserts Yoshida also fails to teach or suggest the calculating detailed
coordinates step. App. Br. 10-11. Finally, Appellant asserts various
dependent claims are patentable over the combination of Wei and Yoshida.
App. Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 7—9.
The Examiner’s Findings
Initially, we address the Examiner’s mappings from the rejection of
claim 1 and the associated findings because there appears to be confusion by
Appellant regarding the specific mappings. See App. Br. 7 (asserting the
Examiner admits Wei does not disclose the calculating detailed coordinates
3
Appeal 2015-005679
Application 12/614,720
step), 10—11 (asserting the Examiner relies on Yoshida for teaching the
calculating detailed coordinates step); Reply Br. 1 (asserting the Examiner
maps item 106 in Figure 1 of Wei to the recited “detection coordinates”), 4
(asserting “the Answer never says what in Wei supposedly constitutes
applicant’s claimed ‘detailed coordinates,”’ and “[t]he [Non-]Final Rejection
says Wei’s ‘detailed coordinates’ are ‘fig. 4, items X, Y’”)), 6—7 (asserting
the Examiner admits Wei does not disclose the calculating detailed
coordinates step and neither Wei nor Yoshida teaches the calculating
detailed coordinates step).
As stated above, the Examiner finds Wei discloses every limitation of
independent claims 1 and 16—18. Non-Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 3. The
Examiner finds Wei does not specifically disclose “wherein the detailed
coordinate calculation calculates detailed coordinates indicating a point in
the direction of the unit area indicated by the previously acquired detection
coordinates, as viewed from a point corresponding to the center of the unit
area indicated by the currently acquired detection coordinates,” as recited in
dependent claim 2. Non-Final Act. 4; see Ans. 4. Although this limitation is
similar to the calculating detailed coordinates step, the italicized portion of
claim 2 quoted above indicates the difference—i.e., claim 2 further defines
the point from which the recited indicated direction is viewed. The
Examiner neither admits Wei fails to disclose nor finds Yoshida teaches the
calculating detailed coordinates step recited in claim 1. It is unclear whether
Appellant asserts claims 1 and 2 are of the same scope or whether Appellant
merely overlooked the difference between the limitations recited in claims 1
and 2.
4
Appeal 2015-005679
Application 12/614,720
To the extent Appellant asserts the scope is the same, we disagree.
Furthermore, because the claims are of different scope and the Examiner did
not rely on Yoshida for teaching the calculating detailed coordinates step,
we need not address further Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner finds
Wei fails to disclose the calculating detailed coordinates step.
Next, we address the Examiner’s findings regarding which of Wei’s
elements disclose the recited detection coordinates and the detailed
coordinates. We address other related elements recited in the claim for
clarity. The Examiner finds each of Wei’s encoding blocks (Fig. 4, item
122) discloses a unit area, Wei’s frame center (Fig. 4, item 210) discloses
the reference point, the particular coordinate (Fig. 4, the particular instance
of item 122 identified as having the coordinate “(X, Y)”) of Wei’s encoding
block in which the frame center is detected discloses the detection
coordinates, and the more accurate coordinate (Fig. 4, the particular
coordinate of (x+5/6, y+5/6) within an encoding block in which the frame
center is detected discloses the detailed coordinates. Non-Final Act. 2—3;
Ans. 3; see Wei, Fig. 4. Thus, we do not address further any of Appellant’s
arguments regarding the failure of the Examiner to provide a mapping of
Wei’s disclosed elements to the recited claim limitations.
We adopt the Examiner’s specific findings discussed above.
Anticipation Rejection
Appellant’s primary substantive argument regarding independent
claims 1 and 16—18 is that, to the extent Wei discloses calculating detailed
coordinates, Wei only discloses using currently acquired detection
coordinates and does not disclose using previously acquired detection
coordinates. App. Br. 8, 10; Reply Br. 4—6. Appellant further explains that
5
Appeal 2015-005679
Application 12/614,720
Wei calculates the location of its frame center only based on currently
acquired coordinates and, in order to track movement of the scanning device,
rapidly updates the display in response to each new captured frame. Reply
Br. 5. Appellant further contends the Examiner has not pointed to anything
in Wei disclosing that any coordinates are calculated “based on both
currently acquired and previously acquired detection coordinates.” Id.
With respect to the calculating detailed coordinates step, the Examiner
merely points to “figs. 5-7, item 210 and correspond[ing] text.” Non-Final
Act. 3; see Ans. 3. The Examiner provides no further explanation.
We agree with Appellant that Wei appears to disclose calculating the
position of the frame center of the optical scanning device solely based on
currently acquired detection coordinates. Reviewing Figures 5 through 7,
item 210, and the accompanying text, we see nothing sufficient to disclose
the calculating detailed coordinates step, specifically with respect to the
portion of the limitation that recites the coordinates “indicate] a point in the
direction of a unit area indicated by previously acquired detection
coordinates.’ '’ Item 201 in Figures 5 through 7 is merely the frame center of
the optical scanning device whose location Wei calculates. Figures 5
through 7 and the accompanying description merely describe the process
used in Wei to provide a more accurate coordinate, which the Examiner
finds discloses the recited detailed coordinate.
To the extent the Examiner relies on the microdots in Figures 5
through 7 as disclosing previously acquired detection coordinates, that is
inconsistent with the Examiner’s mapping of the coordinate of a particular
encoding block to the recited detection coordinates. Furthermore, such a
mapping would be inconsistent with Appellant’s recited detection
6
Appeal 2015-005679
Application 12/614,720
coordinates, which Appellant’s Specification defines as “coordinates
detected by the pointing device and used for locating a unit area in which an
input was made.” See Spec. 4:20-5:2.
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 Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987). On this record, therefore, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 16—18. Similarly, on this
record, we must reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 11—
15 and 19, which depend from claims 1 and 18, respectively.
Obviousness Rejection
As discussed above, the Examiner rejects dependent claims 2—10 as
obvious in view of the combined teachings of Wei and Yoshida. Non-Final
Act. 4. Although Appellant raises additional arguments with respect to some
of the dependent limitations, dependent claims 2—10 ultimately depend from
independent claim 1 and, via that dependency, include every limitation
recited in claim 1. Because the Examiner does not find Yoshida cures the
deficiency identified above, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2—10 for the same reason discussed above.
Summary
On this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 11—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wei, and
claims 2—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of the combined
teachings of Wei and Yoshida.
7
Appeal 2015-005679
Application 12/614,720
DECISION
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1—19.
REVERSED
8