Ex Parte BaikDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 9, 201513250405 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 13/250,405 09/30/2011 Jong-Min Baik 1235-498 CON (SP6201) 3571 66547 7590 09/10/2015 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER SCHNIREL, ANDREW B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/10/2015 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 JONG-MIN BAIK ____________________ Appeal 2013-007800 Application 13/250,405 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before: JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–13. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellant’s’ disclosed invention relates to an apparatus and method 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2013-007800 Application 13/250,405 2 for overlapping a semitransparent keyboard on a background or application output on a touch screen and inputting a key using the semitransparent keyboard. Spec. 6:4–6. Claim 1, which is representative, reads as follows: 1. An apparatus for inputting a key in a device having a touch screen, comprising: a display for outputting a semitransparent keyboard overlapping one of a background screen and an executed application screen; a touch sensor positioned above the display to sense a touch; and a controller for overlapping the semitransparent keyboard on one of the background and executed application screens output on the display when a key input event occurs, checking whether the touch is for a key input, when the touch is for the key input, receiving a key in a position corresponding to the touch, and controlling the key to be output on the display, wherein the semitransparent keyboard overlaps a portion of the display with at least three peripheral edges of the semitransparent keyboard contacting perimeters of the display. References The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Logan Ericsson US 5,666,113 US 6,130,665 Sept. 9, 1997 Oct. 10, 2000 Sato Griffin US 2003/0030628 A1 US 2004/0080487 A1 Feb. 13, 2003 Apr. 29, 2004 Rejections Claims 1, 6, and 11–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ericsson and Griffin. Final Act. 2–10. Appeal 2013-007800 Application 13/250,405 3 Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ericsson, Griffin, and Sato. Final Act. 10–13. Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ericsson, Griffin, Sato, and Logan. Final Act. 14–15. ISSUE Whether the combination of Ericsson and Griffin teaches or suggests “wherein the semitransparent keyboard overlaps a portion of the display with at least three peripheral edges of the semitransparent keyboard contacting perimeters of the display” (“keyboard limitation”), as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS With respect to the keyboard limitation, the Examiner finds Ericsson teaches a semitransparent keyboard that overlaps a portion of the display. Ans. 18 (citing Ericsson, Figs. 1, 4; col. 2, ll. 29–42; col. 3, ll. 19–25). The Examiner acknowledges Ericsson does not teach that the keyboard has at least three peripheral edges contacting perimeters of the display and relies on Griffin for teaching this limitation. Id. Griffin describes a lower screen portion that is divided into left and right screen portions. Griffin ¶ 36. Griffin further teaches the left screen portion displays the 14 characters of the alphabet normally typed with the left hand on a conventional QWERTY keyboard and the right screen portion displays the 12 characters of the alphabet normally typed with the right hand. Id. The Examiner finds these left and right screen portions comprise a keyboard that overlaps a portion of the display and has at least three peripheral edges contacting perimeters of Appeal 2013-007800 Application 13/250,405 4 the display. Ans. 18 (citing Griffin, Fig. 2; ¶ 36). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes the combination of Ericsson and Griffin teaches or suggests the keyboard limitation. Ans. 18–19. Appellant’s First Contention Appellant contends the combination of Ericsson and Griffin fails to teach or suggest the keyboard limitation because Griffin does not teach or suggest a semitransparent keyboard that overlaps the portion of the display and has at least three peripheral edges contacting perimeters of the display, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 5. Appellant contends “[t]he keyboard of Griffin that enables output of a key is the thumb-actuated keyboard, which is provided separate from the display of the portable electronic device” and not the alphanumeric characters displayed in the left and right screen portions of the display. App. Br. 5. Appellant contends the thumb-actuated keyboard does not overlap a portion of the display or have at least three peripheral edges contacting perimeters of the display, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 5. Griffin teaches “[t]he lower screen portion 116 . . . displays a virtual keyboard showing the possible characters that can be selected by the input devices 50, 52.” Griffin ¶ 36 (emphasis added). As such, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding Griffin’s left and right screen portions teach or suggest a “keyboard.” Appellant’s Second Contention Appellants contend even if the characters displayed in the first and second screen portions are properly considered as teaching a keyboard, Griffin fails to teach that at least three peripheral edges of the first and second screen portions contact perimeters of the display because the right peripheral edge Appeal 2013-007800 Application 13/250,405 5 of right screen portion is not shown in Figure 2 as contacting the perimeter of the display. App. Br. 5–6. Appellant contends that for the left and right screen portions to have a peripheral edge contacting a perimeter of the display, the left and right screen portions must compose the entire lower display screen portion of the display. Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends Griffin teaches away from the left and right screen portions composing the entire lower portion of the display because brackets 120 and 122, shown in Figure 2 as defining the left and right portions, do not occupy the entire lower portion of the display. Reply Br. 2–3. Figure 2 of Griffin depicts the left and right screen portions 120 and 122 as comprising all of the lower screen portion 116 of the display. In particular, Griffin teaches “the screen 22 is . . . divided into upper and lower portions 118, 116,” where the lower screen portion “displays a virtual keyboard,” and “is further divided into left and right screen portions 120, 122.” Griffin ¶ 36. As such, Griffin teaches or suggests at least three peripheral edges of the left and right screen portions (e.g., displaying the keyboard in lower portion 116) contacting perimeters of the display. We disagree with Appellant’s contention that Griffin teaches away from the left and right screen portions occupying the entire lower display screen portion 116 because Griffin does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, or in rejecting claims 6 and 11–13 which Appellant does not separately argue, relying instead on the same arguments presented for claim 1. App. Br. 6. With respect to claims 2–5 and 7–10 Appellant merely argues Sato and Logan do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Ericsson and Appeal 2013-007800 Application 13/250,405 6 Griffin. Id. at 7–8. Therefore, for these same reasons we are also not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2–5 and 7–10. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–13 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). AFFIRMED dw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation