Ex Parte Yamamoto et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201613416569 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/416,569 03/09/2012 60803 7590 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 620 Herndon Parkway Suite 320 Herndon, VA 20170 08/31/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kazuyuki Yamamoto 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. 1946-0405 3448 EXAMINER BUTTRAM, ALAN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAZUYUKI YAMAMOTO, AKIHIRO KOMORI, HIROYUKI MIZUNUMA, IKUO YAMANO, and NARIAKI SATO Appeal2015-005961 Application 13/416,569 1 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, KEVIN C. TROCK, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Sony Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-005961 Application 13/416,569 Invention The claimed invention relates to a portable electronic device including a touch sensor which acquires operation information input by an operation subject based on an operation performed by an operator on an operation surface. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claims 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An electronic device comprising: an operation information acquisition section which acquires operation information input by an operation subject based on an operation performed by an operator on an operation surface; an image processing section which generates a picture image on which a picture of the operation subject is reflected, based on the operation information, wherein the picture image comprises a representative point within the picture image that represents a peak value of the operation subject; and an image generation section which generates an image in which the picture image is superimposed on an original image. Rejections Claims 1, 2, 4-5 and 16-19 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigdor et al. (Lucid touch: A See- Through Mobile Device) and Gillespie et al. (US Pub 2009/0174675 Al; July 9, 2009). Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, and Choi et al. (US Pub 2011 /0267291 Al; Nov. 3, 2011). 2 Appeal2015-005961 Application 13/416,569 Claims 6-7 and 11-12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, and Jang et al. (US Pub 2011 /0080359 Al; Apr. 7, 2011). Claim 8 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, W eishauptet al. (US Pub 2012/0062474 Al; Mar. 15, 2012, and Osoinach et al. (US Patent 8,558,802 B2; Oct. 15, 2013). Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, and Roberts (US Pub 2003/0206162 Al; Nov. 6, 2003). Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, Jang, Roberts, and Kim et al. (US Pub 2010/0153876 Al; June 17, 2010). Claim 13 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, Jang, and Bong (US Pub 2010/0005390 Al: Jan. 7, 2010). Claim 14 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, Jang, and Hinckley et al. (US Pub 2011 /0185320 Al; July 28, 2011). Claim 15 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wigdor, Gillespie, Jang, Bong, and Morrison et al. (US Patent 8,203,535 B2; June 19, 2012). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We 3 Appeal2015-005961 Application 13/416,569 disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own, ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Section 103 - Independent Claim 1 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 1 because the combination of Wigdor and Gillespie fails to teach or suggest "a picture image on which a picture of the operation subject is reflected, based on the operation information, wherein the picture image comprises a representative point within the picture image that represents a peak value of the operation subject." App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 4--8. Appellants argue that although Wigdor discloses "a picture image of an operation subject" with "touch-cursors," Wigdor fails to teach or suggest that "the picture image comprises a representative point within the picture image that represents a peak value of the operation subject," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14 (citing Wigdor, Fig. 9). Appellants further argue that Gillespie does not teach or suggest "a picture of the operation subject," as Gillespie merely disclosures X-axis profile 112 and Y-axis profile 120 which are conceptual and not visible to a user, and that none of Gillespie's "distinct peaks 114 and 116 within bumps 119 and 139" are actually displayed as the claimed "picture of the operation subject." App. Br. 15, 16 (citing Gillespie, Fig. 1; i-f 30). Appellants' arguments do not show error because they do not address the Examiner's findings. Here, the Examiner relies on Wigdor, not 4 Appeal2015-005961 Application 13/416,569 Gillespie, to teach the claimed "picture of the operation subject." Ans. 21. Moreover, Appellants agree Wigdor discloses "a picture image of an operation subject" with "touch-cursors." App. Br. 14. The Examiner uses Gillespie to teach the capacitive peak value of a touch point. Ans. 20, 21 (citing Gillespie, Fig, 1; i-f 30). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Wigdor and Gillespie teaches or suggests "a picture image on which a picture of the operation subject is reflected, based on the operation information, wherein the picture image comprises a representative point within the picture image that represents a peak value of the operation subject," as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-18 Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive arguments with respect to claims 2-18. See App. Br. 17-24. Appellants' arguments with respect to these claims merely repeat the same or similar arguments already raised or merely recite the language of the particular claim and assert the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest the claim limitations. Without more, however, such contentions fail to constitute a separate issue of patentability. We, therefore, are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately."). 5 Appeal2015-005961 Application 13/416,569 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation