Ex Parte Ahokas

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 7, 2011

10946567 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 7, 2011)

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.
10/946,567 09/20/2004 Jorma Michael Ahokas 915-007.116 6312
10945 7590 09/07/2011
NOKIA CORPORATION
c/o Ware, Fressola, Van Der Sluys & Adolphson LLP
Building Five, Bradford Green
755 Main Street, PO Box 224
Monroe, CT 06468
EXAMINER
SALOMON, PHENUEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JORMA MICHAEL AHOKAS
___________

Appeal 2009-014524
Application 10/946,567
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JULIE K. BROCKETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROCKETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014524
Application 10/946,567

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1,
3-7 and 9-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claim(s)
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for entering punctuation marks which appear in pairs
within a text into a device, comprising:
activating a special characters menu on a display of the device, said special
characters menu comprising one or more selectable items each representing a pair
of punctuation marks,
selecting a pair of punctuation marks from the special characters menu
through a restricted keyboard of the device, and
displaying the selected pair of punctuation marks as entered in the text on
the display of the device,
wherein the punctuation marks are selected within the special characters
menu by entering the special characters menu only once.

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over King et al., (US 6,307,549 B1, October 23,
2001) in view of Yamamura (JP 63-115217, May 19, 1988).
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over King et al., (US 6,307,549 B1) in view of Yamamura (JP
63-115217) in further view of Krüger et al. (US 6,098,086 B1, August 1, 2000).

Appeal 2009-014524
Application 10/946,567

3
Appellant’s Contentions

The Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-6
and 9-15 because:
King fails to teach:

(A) a special characters menu comprising one or more selectable items each
representing a pair of punctuation marks, and

(B) Selecting a pair of punctuation marks by entering the special characters
menu only once (i.e. making only one selection for both punctuation
marks)

(App. Br. 5).
Yamamura merely teaches entering a pair of punctuation marks by
only entering the first half of the pair, i.e. making only one selection for both
punctuation marks. This corresponds to item (B) of the above listed
deficiencies of King. As of item (A), neither King nor Yamamura teaches
entering a special characters menu to select a pair of punctuation marks from
the special characters menu by selecting only once. None discloses a special
characters menu that is so designed that it comprises one or more selectable
items each representing a pair of punctuation marks. Yamamura, therefore,
does not completely cure the deficiencies of King because it merely teaches
entering punctuation marks in a pair, not entering a pair of punctuation
marks by making a selection from a special characters menu that comprises
one or more selectable items each representing a pair of punctuation marks.

(App. Br. 6).

Issues on Appeal

Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3-6 and 9-15 as being obvious
because King and Yamamura fail to teach or suggest the argued claim limitation?1

1 Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 3-7 and 9 through 15 on pages 11 and
12 of the Brief do not present additional issues for us to decide.
Appeal 2009-014524
Application 10/946,567

4

ANALYSIS

We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
Appellant contends that King does not teach the following two features of
claim 1, “[a] special characters menu comprising one or more selectable items)
…each representing a pair of punctuation marks, and (2) selecting a pair of
punctuation marks (by entering the special characters menu only once…).” (App.
Br. 5). Appellant then goes on to state in the Appeal Brief that Yamamura
“teaches entering a pair of punctuation marks by only entering the first half of the
pair, i.e. making only one selection for both punctuation marks.” Appellant then
clearly stipulates in the Appeal Brief that “This corresponds to item (B) of the
above listed deficiencies of King.” (App. Br. 6). Therefore, the only issue in
question is whether or not the combination of King and Yamamura teaches the
claim limitation in part (A) recited above.
We find that the combination of King and Yamamura teach this limitation.
As cited by the Examiner, King clearly discloses “a special characters menu
comprising one or more selectable items” wherein one of the selectable items is a
punctuation mark. (Ex. Ans. 7 ). For example, an individual may select a
parenthesis from a special characters menu. As stipulated by Appellant,
Yamamura teaches of entering a pair of punctuation marks by only entering the
Appeal 2009-014524
Application 10/946,567

5
first half of the pair, i.e. making only one selection for both punctuation marks
(App. Br. 6). When an individual types the left parenthesis, the system determines
that the right parenthesis will be needed (Ex. Ans. 9). Therefore, it is obvious that
if an individual selects a single punctuation mark in the special characters menu of
King, i.e. the first half of the pair, when combined with the teachings of
Yamamura, i.e. when one half of a pair of punctuation marks is inputted, the
system automatically inputs the second half of the punctuation mark pair,
Appellants claim limitation is met.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-6 and 9-15 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S. C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1, 3-6 and 9-15 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-6 and 9-15 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED