Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201611963287 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111963,287 12/21/2007 10949 7590 08/31/2016 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Xun Chen 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. 042933/407658 9716 EXAMINER LAM, VINH TANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2016 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): usptomail@alston.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XUN CHEN, ROOPE RAINISTO, and MOHAMMAD ANW ARI Appeal2015-004447 Application 11/963,287 1 Technology Center 2600 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 20-22, 25-29, 33-37, and 40-45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention relates to a user interface for text input using a touch display. Spec. 1, 11. 7-10. Claim 20 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2015-004447 Application 11/963,287 20. A method comprising: causing display of application content in at least one first area of a touch display, receiving a text input from the touch display, activating a text input mode and causing display of an at least partially transparent text input area, causing the display of the text input in the text input area, the text input area at least partially overlapping said at least one first area, causing at least a first portion of the text input to temporarily disappear from display so as to allow additional space for at least a second portion of text input, and causing at least the first and second portions of the text input to be displayed in the first area in response to deactivating the text input mode. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 20-22, 25-27, 29, 33-37, 40-42, 44, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lui et al. (US 2005/0025363 Al; published Feb. 3, 2005) (hereinafter "Lui") and Garside et al. (US 7,561, 145 B2; issued July 14, 2009) (hereinafter "Garside"). (2) The Examiner rejected claims 28 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lui, Garside, and Jobs et al. (US 2008/0122796 Al; published May 29, 2008) (hereinafter "Jobs"). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our Decision, we consider 2 Appeal2015-004447 Application 11/963,287 all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We below address specific findings and arguments relating to each of the Examiner's rejections Appellants are appealing. (1) Causing text input to disappear temporarily Appellants argue the combination of Lui and Garside, and Lui in particular, fails to teach or suggest "causing at least a first portion of the text input to temporarily disappear from display so as to allow additional space for at least a second portion of text input," as recited in independent claim 20, and similarly recited in independent claims 29 and 35. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 1. As to this first element, Appellants argue Lui fails to teach it and instead teaches "temporarily hiding a symbol button keypad from the display screen[, and that t ]his is not the same as removing the text input temporarily, but rather discloses removing a component that facilitates text input." App. Br. 9--10 (citing Lui Fig. 4 (arguing the phrase "word recognizer" is the text input and there is no suggestion that it "temporarily disappears from display so as to allow additional space for at least second portion of text input")); see also Reply Br. 1. The Examiner finds the combination teaches this disputed limitation. Ans. 2 2-3; Final Act. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds Lui teaches a symbol button keypad, which is a first text input area, to enter symbols (which are text). See Ans. 2-3 (citing Lui Fig. 4); Final Act. 3 (citing Lui i-fi-157, 59); see also Lui i-fi-159 (teaching that the symbol pad facilitates the entry of symbol characters), 60 (discussing Figure 4's layouts), Fig. 4 (teaching the symbol button pad can be toggled on/off (layout 7) or swapped 2 The page numbering of the Examiner's Answer is incorrect. Accordingly, we cite to pages therein sequentially starting with the page 1 title page. 3 Appeal2015-004447 Application 11/963,287 location in the first area (layout 5)). The Examiner further finds when the symbol button pad temporarily disappears (e.g., is toggled off), additional space is allowed for the word recognizer text input area. See Ans. 3 (citing Lui Fig 4 (layout 7)). We agree with the Examiner and find the combination, and Lui in particular, teaches the disputed element. We find that the language of claim 20 sites the first portion of the text input (e.g., a symbol) in the text input area (e.g. symbol button pad), and thus, when the symbol button pad in Lui temporarily disappears from display (e.g., toggled off), the first portion of the text input also temporarily disappears. See Lui i-fi-157, 59, Fig. 4; App. Br. 18 (claim 20) (reciting "causing the display of the text input in the text input area"). We also find Lui teaches or suggests the disappearance allows additional space for at least a second portion of text input (e.g., words). See Lui i-fi-1 57, 59, Fig. 4 (showing layouts having the symbol button pad swapped/toggled, thus allowing additional space for other text input areas, such as the word recognizer). We note that claim 20 does not specify in what text input area, if any, the second portion of text input is entered. (2) Causing text input to be displayed Appellants argue the combination of Lui and Garside, and Garside in particular, fails to teach or suggest "causing at least the first and second portions of the text input to be displayed in the first area in response to deactivating the text input mode," as recited in independent claim 20, and similarly recited in independent claims 2 9 and 3 5. App. Br. 10-11. Appellants first argue that the Examiner "merely refers to a display screen of Garside which provides an interface for handwriting input and keyboard input." App. Br. 10. Appellants also argue the Examiner just "refers to a 4 Appeal2015-004447 Application 11/963,287 first and second portions of text, and an arbitrary portion of the illustrated display as the 'first area,' as recited in the claims, with no reference as to how the first portion, second portion, and first area relate to the interpretation of the claimed features with respect to Lui." App. Br. 10-11. Appellants further contend that "there is no suggestion in Garside that a first and second portion of text are displayed in the first area 'in response to deactivating the text input mode."' The Examiner finds the combination, and Garside in particular, teaches causing at least a first portion of text input (i.e., the handwritten top portion of Figure 5C) and a second portion of text input (i.e., the typed bottom portion of Figure 5C) to be displayed in a first area (i.e., the Word Processor Revised Draft window) in response to deactivating the text input mode (i.e., "[ w ]hen placing the activation target ... 402a along the bottom edge of the display screen 400, in order to prevent the text input system from deploying"). Ans. 3--4 (citing Garside 16: 18-21, Fig. 5C). We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own. Appellants' arguments do not persuasively address why the Examiner's specific findings of what Garside teaches are incorrect, and largely just recite the language of the claim and assert that Garside does not disclose that limitation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art"). 5 Appeal2015-004447 Application 11/963,287 (3) Combining References Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to provide sufficient reasoning to combine Lui and Garside, and that the reasoning that is provided is merely improper general, conclusory statements. App. Br. 11. Appellants also argue the Examiner "fails to articulate why one would combine the references to introduce prevention of input as taught by Garside ... to Lui, since neither Lui nor embodiments of the claims aims to prevent input." Id. at 11-12. Furthermore, Appellants argue that "the claims do not aim to avoid unintentional input." Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lui' s teaching with Garside' s "teaching of causing at least the first and second portions of the text input to be displayed in the first area in response to deactivating the text input mode to enhance user input/output inteiface by providing an intuitive indicator when text input is allowed, therefore, also to avoid unintentional input." Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. We find the Examiner provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We disagree with Appellants that the Examiner's provided rationale are mere conclusory statements. Furthermore, we find Appellants' argument that the claimed invention is directed to a different problem inapposite. See In re Linter, 45 8 F .2d 1013, 1016 ( CCP A 1972) (finding it is not necessary for the prior art to serve the same purpose as that disclosed in Appellants' specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious). 6 Appeal2015-004447 Application 11/963,287 With respect to claims 28 and 43, Appellants also assert that the Examiner's reasoning for combining Jobs with Lui and Garside- "to enhance user input operations by providing abundant inputs yet greatly reducing parts and complexity of design and functionality/methodology of the device" - "is a conclusory statement and lacks reasoning including clear articulation of the rationale for combining the references." See App. Br. 13-14; Final Act. 7. We disagree and find the Examiner provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. (4) Interpreting input via said touch display Appellants argue that the combination of Lui and Garside, and Lui in particular, fails to teach or suggest "interpreting input via said touch display as text input when said text input area is actively displayed and otherwise interpreting input via said touch display as control input," as recited in claim 22, and similarly recited in claim 37. App. Br. 12-13. Specifically, Appellants argue Lui instead teaches that a user can actively switch between interface tabs to provide different types of input, which does not teach otherwise interpreting input as control input. Id. (citing Lui i-f 59, Fig. 4). Appellants also argue that the Examiner's citing ofLui's paragraph 3 is not helpful because it just "very generically describes using a keyboard or stylus as input, with no reference to how the input is interpreted." App. Br. 13 (citing Lui i-f 3). The Examiner finds Lui teaches or suggests interpreting input via said touch display as text input when said text input area is actively displayed and otherwise interpreting input via said touch display as control input. Ans. 4 (citing Lui Fig. 4, i-f 3 ("i.e. entering command")). 7 Appeal2015-004447 Application 11/963,287 We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Lui fail to teach or suggest interpreting input as control input when the text input area is not actively displayed. See Lui Fig. 4, i-f 3. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 22 and 37. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 20, 21, 25-29, 33-36, and 40-45. We reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 22 and 37. 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-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation