Ex Parte Yamaguchi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2017

14730411 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 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.
14/730,411 06/04/2015 Takeshi YAMAGUCHI 70404.2611/fj 2521
54072 7590 11/24/2017
SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA
C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
DEMETER, HILINA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2017 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM
u spto @ kbiplaw. com
epreston @ kbiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKESHI YAMAGUCHI
Appeal 2017-003851
Application 14/730,4111
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2-8, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the Applicant, Sharp
Kabushiki Kaisha. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-003851
Application 14/730,411
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to a printer user interface that allows a
user to select both a layout direction and a scrolling direction with a single
command. Spec. 3: 1^4:12. Claim 2 is illustrative of the appealed subject
matter and reads as follows:
2. An image display operation device comprising:
an operation screen displaying a document image in a
preview representation;
a display controller, characterized in that the display
controller has a function of presenting a plurality of document
images on the operation screen in the preview representation
and a function of displaying the plurality of document images
presented in the preview representation in a vertically or
laterally scrolling manner,
the display controller includes:
a commanded position detecting controller that
detects, when a user designates a position to be operated
on the operation screen, the position designated by the
user as a commanded position; and
a switching controller that sets both of a layout
direction and a scrolling direction in the plurality of
document images presented in the preview representation
in accordance with the commanded position detected by
the commanded position detecting controller, and
the commanded position is a position relative to a
reference document image to be a reference among the plurality
of document images presented in the preview representation.
2
Appeal 2017-003851
Application 14/730,411
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 2—4 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mano et al. (US 2008/0225346 Al; Sept. 18, 2008) and
Tokiwa (US 2005/0174589 Al; Aug. 11, 2005). Final Act. 4-14.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mano, Tokiwa, and Saida (US 2010/0328739 Al; Dec. 30, 2010). Final
Act. 14-16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. Appellant persuades us
that the Examiner fails to establish that the claims are unpatentable over the
cited prior art.
The Examiner finds the combination of Mano and Tokiwa teaches or
suggests “a switching controller that sets both of a layout direction and a
scrolling direction ... in accordance with the commanded position detected
by the commanded position detecting controller,” as recited in claim 2.
Final Act. 5-7. In particular, the Examiner finds Mano teaches a system that
allows a user to operate page forward and page back buttons (a “commanded
position”) to scroll pages of preview images. Ans. 3 (citing Mano ^ 72).
The Examiner further finds Mano teaches allowing a user to arrange the
pages in a vertical direction or horizontal direction, with the pages being
rotated as necessary for the display. Ans. 3—4 (citing Mano ^ 74). The
Examiner acknowledges Mano does not teach “a switching controller that
sets both of a layout direction and a scrolling direction ... in accordance
with the commanded position,” instead relying on Tokiwa for this limitation.
Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Tokiwa teaches horizontal scroll bar 106 and
3
Appeal 2017-003851
Application 14/730,411
vertical scroll bar 107 and the user can switch scroll bars to control the
layout direction. Ans. 4 (citing Tokiwa ^ 121).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because neither Mano nor
Tokiwa teaches or suggests the recited switching limitation. Specifically,
Appellant argues Mano’s page forward and page back buttons cannot
correspond to the claimed “commanded position” because these buttons are
not used to set both a layout direction and a scrolling direction. Reply Br. 2.
Appellant argues Mano’s preview images may be separately displayed
horizontally or vertically, but there is no commanded position that controls
both the layout and scrolling direction. Id. at 3.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner has not
adequately explained or supported the finding that the combination teaches
or suggests “a switching controller that sets both of a layout direction and a
scrolling direction ... in accordance with the commanded position detected
by the commanded position detecting controller,” as recited in claim 2. If
Mano’s page forward and page back buttons are the “commanded positions”
recited in claim 2, these buttons are not related to the layout position as
required by the claim. Similarly, Tokiwa’s horizontal and vertical scroll
bars are unrelated to the layout position of the preview images.
Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to establish that either reference taken
individually or the combined teachings of the references teach or suggest “a
switching controller that sets both of a layout direction and a scrolling
direction . . . in accordance with the commanded position,'''’ as recited in
claim 2 (emphasis added).
On this record we, therefore, do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of independent claim 2. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
4
Appeal 2017-003851
Application 14/730,411
independent claim 8, which recites commensurate limitations, or dependent
claims 3, 4, 6, and 7.
Claim 5 depends from claim 2 and stands rejected over Mano,
Tokiwa, and Saido. Based on the record before us, the Examiner has not
shown how the additionally cited reference, Saido, overcomes the deficiency
discussed above for claim 2. Consequently, we do not sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 5.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2-8.
REVERSED
5