Ex Parte Yamashita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13476705 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
13/476,705 05/21/2012 YOSHIKAZU YAMASHITA 723-3398 1600
27562 7590 03/30/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
HARRISON, CHANTE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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 YOSHIKAZU YAMASHITA and KEIICHI MINATO
Appeal 2014-003706
Application 13/476,705
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-003706
Application 13/476,705
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 10-12 and 17—27. Claims 1—9 and 13—16 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter
[R] elates to an arrangement for providing the user with a
convenient and simple means to set and/or change a parameter
controlling the responsive rate of movement with which a
displayed object tracks/moves around on the display screen in
response to changes in a pointing direction of a hand-held
controller/input device that are made by the user when operating
the controller/input device as a pointing and indicating device for
positioning and/or moving an object displayed on the display
screen.
App. Br. 5. Claims 10 and 22, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized in italics, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
10. A storage medium storing an image processing program to
be executed by a computer of an image processing apparatus for
placing a displayed image on a predetermined placement position
in a display area in accordance with a designation input obtained
from an input device having an image-pickup configured to take
an image of an imaging target, the image processing program
comprising instructions causing the computer to:
obtain the designation input from the input device;
calculate, based on a position of the imaging target in the
taken image, a distance between the imaging target and the
image-pickup;
based on the distance, change a rate of change of the
placement position in relation to a change of the position of the
imaging target in the taken image, thereby calculating the
placement position;
2
Appeal 2014-003706
Application 13/476,705
placing the image on the placement position; and
causing a display device to display the image at the image
placement position, wherein the placement position calculation
instructions cause the computer to calculate the placement
position in such a manner as to increase the rate of change of the
placement position in accordance with a decrease in the distance
calculated by the distance calculation.
22. An interactive display system for use with a display device
and an associated imaging target, the display system comprising:
a handheld input device having an image-pickup for
capturing views of the imaging target in a pointing direction of
the input device;
a graphics processor configured to display an object at a
placement position on the display device; and
a processor that receives information from the input device
image-pickup and is operatively coupled to the graphics
processor, the processor being configured to enable a user to
perform object placement setting for displaying and moving the
object on the display device in accordance with changes in the
pointing direction of the input device, the processor being used
to:
(a) automatically determine an object placement position
based on information obtained from the input device image-pick
up;
(b) based on information obtained from the input device
image pickup, automatically determine a change in at least one
aspect of distance of the input device from the imaging target as
the user moves the input device toward or away from the display
device;
(c) automatically controlling the graphics processor to
generate a movable object to be displayed on the display device
by using an object image size scale value based at least in part on
the change in distance of the input device from the imaging
target;
(d) using the object image size scale value to calculate an
object image movement scaling value specifying the rate the
3
Appeal 2014-003706
Application 13/476,705
placement position of the displayed movable object changes with
change in the input device pointing direction; and
(e) using the object image size scale value and the object
image movement scaling value to automatically control how the
displayed object responds to movement of the input device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Salsman US 2006/0152488 A1 July 13,2006
Gossweiler US 7,379,078 B1 May 27,2008
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 10-12 and 17—27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gossweiler and Salsman. Final Act. 5—
13.
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS1
1. In connection with independent claims 10, 17, 19—21, and 27,
“Gossweiler’s disclosure of symbol size calculation . . . does not
result in a value expressing a rate of change for the symbol size or
result in any value that represents a rate of change of anything.” App.
Br. 23.
2. In connection with independent claims 22 and 26 “Gossweiler clearly
does not teach or suggest using the calculated symbol size to further
calculate a movement scaling value which is used for ‘specifying the
rate the placement position of the displayed movable object changes
with change in the input device pointing direction.’” Reply Br. 7.
1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error but we do not
reach them as our resolution of these contentions are dispositive of the
appealed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal 2014-003706
Application 13/476,705
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 10,
17, 19—22, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gossweiler and Salsman. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions as to this
rejection of the claims.
In connection with independent claim 10 the Examiner finds
Gossweiler teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of “[bjased on the
distance, change a rate of change of the placement position in relation to a
change of the position of the imaging target in the taken image, thereby
calculating the placement position,” the Examiner citing to Gossweiler col.
3,11. 59—67; Fig. 3. Final Act. 6. The Examiner explains:
Gossweiler discloses changing a displayed symbol size
relative to the amount of change in distance of a user operated
remote control. Gossweiler discloses calculating the amount/rate
of change of the symbol size (col. 7, 11. 24—51) based on the
received distance input information of the remote control (col. 4-
5,11. 60-6).
Ans. 11. Appellants contend “Neither Gossweiler nor Salsman teach or
suggest structure or process to change a rate of change or to cause an
increase in the rate of change of a placement position of a displayed
object/image, as required by Appellants’ claims”. App. Br. 22. Appellants
argue:
Gossweiler’s disclosure of symbol size calculation module 212
and the disclosed equation used for calculation of a symbol
height by symbol size calculation module 212 clearly does not
result in a value expressing a rate of change for the symbol size
or result in any value that represents a rate of change of anything.
To the contrary, Gossweiler’s teachings and calculation result in
a value representing only a discrete symbol size, which is not a
5
Appeal 2014-003706
Application 13/476,705
“rate” but rather is defined as a “font size which is typically
stated as a number of points”. As such, Appellants respectfully
submit that a “symbol size” as defined by Gossweiler’s
specification clearly does not teach or suggest a “movement
scaling value” which can specify a rate at which a placement
position changes.
App. Br. 23. Appellants further emphasize “[t]he ‘placement position’ of
Gossweiler's text symbols does not change, only the size of the displayed
symbols changes.” App. Br. 24.
We agree with Appellants. The portions of Gossweiler cited by the
Examiner for teaching the disputed limitation make no mention of changing
or specifying a rate of change of a placement position of an object displayed
on a display screen as required by the independent claims. At most,
Gossweiler discloses controlling font size (i.e., an amount) based on viewer-
to-display distance. Gossweiler col. 5,11. 2—16. Although Gossweiler’s rate
of font size may change based on changing distances from a remote control
device to the distance sensing system, i.e., D1 of Gossweiler’s symbol height
formula give at column 5, line 7 of the reference, any such change in a rate
at which the font size is affected is speculative at best. Furthermore, the
Examiner has not shown Gossweiler’s changing font size is reasonably
interpreted as a change in a placement position of a displayed object as
required by the independent claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gossweiler
and Salsman and, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 17, 19—21, and 27, which include similar limitations, nor
do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 12 and 18, which stand with
their respective independent claims.
6
Appeal 2014-003706
Application 13/476,705
In connection with independent claims 22 and 26, Appellants argue
“[f]or at least the same reasons as previously stated relating to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief arguments [in connection with contention 1], Gossweiler’s
adjusted symbol size is not a movement scaling value.” Reply Br. 7. We
agree for the reasons discussed supra. For example, as argued by
Appellants, “Gossweiler’s calculated target symbol height/size is clearly not
a ‘size scale value’ and the Gossweiler’s adjusted symbol size is clearly not
a ‘movement scaling value’” as recited by claims 22 and 26. App. Br. 27.
Therefore, we further do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 22
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gossweiler and Salsman.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10—12 and 17—27.
REVERSED
7