Ex Parte Shimotani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

13129533 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/129,533 05/16/2011
127226 7590 05/03/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mitsuo Shimotani
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.
l l 63-0902PUS 1 9753
EXAMINER
HUYNH, LINDA TANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MITSUO SHIMOTANI, TSUTOMU MATSUBARA,
TAKASHI SADAHIRO, MASAKO OHTA,
YUICHI OKANO, and TSUYOSHI SEMPUKU
Appeal2014-007244
Application 13/129,533
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
9-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007244
Application 13/129,533
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application "relates to a display input device and a
navigation device [that] are particularly suitable for use in vehicle-mounted
information equipment such as a navigation system." Spec i-f 1. Claim 9
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
9. A display input device comprising:
a touch panel for carrying out a display of an image and an
input of information;
a proximity sensor for detecting a movement of an object
to be detected which is positioned opposite to said touch panel in
a non-contact manner; and
a control unit for, when said proximity sensor detects an
approach of said object within a predetermined distance from
said touch panel, processing external icons which are icons
displayed in an area except a display area having a fixed range
from said object, but maintaining the size of internal icons which
are icons displayed within said display area having the fixed
range, and displaying said internal icons and said processed
external icons in the display area of said touch panel.
REJECTIONS
Claims 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over a translation of Koshobu (JP 2006-031499 A; Feb. 2,
2006) and Nakano (US 2004/0100479 Al; May 27, 2004).
Claim 10, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Koshobu, Nakano, and Lee (US 2003/0234799 Al; Dec.
25, 2003).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Koshobu, Nakano, and Jing (US 2007 /0209025 Al; Sept. 6, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-007244
Application 13/129,533
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Koshobu, Nakano, and Comerford (US 5,963,671; Oct. 5,
1999).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence
presented in light of Appellants' arguments. We disagree with Appellants
that the Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings, reasoning, and
conclusions as set forth in the Final Rejection and Answer to the extent
consistent with the following analysis.
Appellants contend the Examiner's combination of Koshobu and
Nakano fails to teach or suggest the "control unit" recited in claim 9. App.
Br. 4--6; Reply Br. 1-3. Appellants argue Nakano does not teach or suggest
that Nakano's "non-selected menu panels are icons displayed outside an area
having a fixed range from said object to be detected by a proximity sensor as
recited in claim 9." Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 5. Appellants contend
Nakano's non-selected icons are not the same as the recited "external icons"
because Nakano distinguishes icons based on "whether the icon is a
candidate for selection," whereas "the claimed invention distinguishes icons
according to whether ... those concerned are within a fixed range from an
object to be detected." App. Br. 5. Appellants also argue the Examiner
erroneously found Nakano teaches filling non-selected items with a different
color and therefore Nakano does not teach "processing external icons." See
id.
Appellants further argue that "processing candidate items to
differentiate them from non-candidate icons ... based on a predetermined
3
Appeal2014-007244
Application 13/129,533
position/location on a display screen is not the same as processing external
icons ... based on the detection of an object position opposite to the display
in a non-contact manner as claimed." Reply Br. 2. Finally, Appellants
contend that even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason
to modify Koshobu and Nakano in the manner suggested by the Examiner,
"there is no teaching or suggestion of processing external icons while
maintaining the size of internal icons as claimed." Reply Br. 3.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner
concluded a combination of Koshobu's and Nakano's teachings suggest the
"control unit" recited in claim 9. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 14--16.
Specifically, the Examiner found Koshobu teaches each of the limitations
recited in claim 9 except for "processing external icons ... but maintaining
the size of internal icons." See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 14--16. The Examiner
found Nakano teaches this limitation. Final Act. 4; Ans. 14--16. In
particular, the Examiner found Nakano teaches differentiating "between
items in a selection state and non-selection state" by adjusting one or more
of the transparency, color, or size of items in a non-selection state based on
the distance of these items from a virtual camera while maintaining the size
of items in a selection state. See Ans. 14--16.
With respect to Appellants' contention that the Examiner erroneously
found Nakano teaches filling non-selected items with a different color and
therefore Nakano cannot teach "processing external icons," even if
Appellants were correct on this point, the Examiner also found Nakano
teaches other changes to the non-selected items such as altering each item's
transparency and size. See App. Br. 14--16. As for Appellants' other
arguments, these arguments concern Nakano individually but, as discussed
4
Appeal2014-007244
Application 13/129,533
above, the Examiner found a combination ofKoshobu's and Nakano's
teaching suggest the recited "control unit," see Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 14--16.
"[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 9.
Because Appellants have not presented separate, persuasive patentability
arguments for claims 10-16, we also sustain the rejections of the claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 9-16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5