Ex Parte CHO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14204396 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/204,396 03/11/2014
66547 7590 09/27/2018
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 2IOE
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xae-MinCHO
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.
678-4774 (Pl9735) 9374
EXAMINER
CALDERON N, ALVARO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
pto@farrelliplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XAE-MIN CH0 1
Appeal2018-002345
Application 14/204,396
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 20-26. Claims 2--4, 7, 8, 10,
and 16-19 are canceled. Appeal Br. 15-17. We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and is
identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002345
Application 14/204,396
Invention
The Specification discloses a method to provide for deletion of an
item displayed on a touch screen display that deletes the item if both a drag-
touch first deletion condition and a second deletion condition are satisfied.
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method for deleting an item displayed on a touch screen display,
the method comprising:
recognizing a drag touch on the item displayed on the touch screen
display;
determining whether a pattern of the drag touch satisfies a deletion
condition;
when determining that the pattern of the drag touch satisfies the
deletion condition, displaying a remaining time of a timer on the
touch screen display;
deleting the item from the touch screen display if a touch on the touch
screen display is maintained until expiration of the remaining time of
the timer that is displayed on the touch screen display; and
automatically cancelling deletion of the item if the touch on the touch
screen display is not maintained until the expiration of the remaining
time of the timer that is displayed on the touch screen display.
Re} ections and References
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 20, 22, 24, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Sakata et al. (US
5,805,725; issued Sept. 8, 1998) ("Sakata") and Chen et al. (US 2007/
0192692 Al; published Aug. 16, 2007) ("Chen"). Final Act. 2---6.
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Sakata, Chen, and Chang (US 2009/0153525 Al;
published June 18, 2009). Final Act. 6-7.
2
Appeal2018-002345
Application 14/204,396
The Examiner rejects claims 21, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Sakata, Chen, and Thorsander et al. (US 2013/
0227454 Al; published Aug. 29, 2013) ("Thorsander"). Final Act. 7-9.
CLAIMS 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 21, 23, and 25
Findings and Contentions
Sakata discloses a handwriting input apparatus that recognizes a
sequence of handwriting points as specifying an erasure. Sakata Abstract.
Sakata further teaches or suggests displaying a dialogue to confirm erasure.
Id. at col. 27, 11. 59---63, Figs. 34--35. The Examiner relies on these features
of Sakata to teach or suggest when determining that a pattern of a drag
touch satisfies a deletion condition, requiring further confirmation to effect
erasure (i.e., satisfaction of a second deletion condition). Final Act. 3 (citing
Sakata Abstract, Figs. 34, 35, col. 3, 11. 28-32, col. 27, 11. 55---67, and col. 28,
11. 1-26). However, the Examiner acknowledges that Sakata's confirmation
dialogue "does not ... expressly recite displaying a remaining time of a
timer on the touch screen display." Final Act. 3.
The Examiner relies on Chen's use of an animated rendering of a time
period to give the user an opportunity time to contemplate, and possibly
withdraw invocation of, an irrevocable action to teach or suggest displaying
a remaining time of a timer on a touch screen display. Final Act. 3-5
( citing, e.g., Chen ,r 35, Figs. 3A-F). The Examiner concludes it would have
been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to substitute Chen's timer
animation for Sakata's confirmation dialogue as an alternative, predictable
way to prevent erroneous erasure. Final Act. 5 (citing Sakata col. 28, 11. 14--
16).
3
Appeal2018-002345
Application 14/204,396
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "Chen is silent on [a]
'drag touch' or 'a pattern of a drag touch."' Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further
argues Chen's changing of block portions 307 A-L does not teach or suggest
displaying a remaining time of a timer. Id. at 9-10 (citing, e.g., Chen ,r,r 35-
41, Figs. 3A-F). Appellant also argues Sakata discloses a "line (H) of points
that are near one or more ... primitive figures" rather than teaching or
suggesting when determining that a pattern of the drag touch satisfies a
deletion condition, displaying a remaining time of a timer on a touch screen
display. Reply Br. 4.
Analysis
With respect to the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12,
15, 21, 23, and 25, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings of facts, and concur with the Examiner's conclusions, as set forth in
the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We have
considered Appellant's arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error.
We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because they fail to show
error in the Examiner's reliance on Sakata's teachings as they pertain to a
drag touch satisfying a deletion condition, in the Examiner's reliance on
Chen as they pertain to display of remaining time of a timer, and in the
Examiner's conclusion that the proffered combination of Sakata and Chen
would have represented an obvious simple substitution.
Appellant describes the handwriting teachings of Sakata. See Final
Act. 5; Reply Br. 3--4. However, Appellant's characterization of Sakata fails
to distinguish the claimed determining that a pattern of a drag touch
satisfies a deletion condition from Sakata's recognition that a sequence of
4
Appeal2018-002345
Application 14/204,396
handwriting points (i.e., a drag touch pattern) specify erasure. See, e.g.,
Sakata Abstract; Final Act. 3.
Appellant contends Chen's changing of block colors in an animation
fails to teach or suggest displaying a remaining time of a timer. See Appeal
Br. 9--10. However, the color changes disclosed and illustrated in Chen
occur over successive animation changes over a time period between an
initial condition being met and an irrevocable action being executed. See
Chen ,r 35, Figs. 3A-F; Final Act. 4--5.
In particular, an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized that
the rate at which the blocks change during successive animation changes,
along with the number of blocks left to change before the irrevocable action
is executed, communicate how much time remains to withdraw invocation of
the irrevocable action. Moreover, the Specification discloses several
examples of a remaining time of a timer being displayed comparable to
Chen's animated block color changes. See Spec. 22-23; Figs. 1 lB, 12A---C
( describing and illustrating remaining time displays in the form of an item
dimming, flickering, being gradually erased, shrinking, or having a
countdown or state bar superimposed thereon). Thus, Appellant's argument
that Chen changes block colors in an animation rather than displaying a
remaining time of a timer is unpersuasive. See Appeal Br. 9--10.
Appellant argues Chen fails to cure the acknowledged deficiency of
Sakata. See Reply Br. 4. However, we agree with the Examiner that it
would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to substitute Chen's
timer display for Sakata's confirmation dialogue. See Final Act. 5. No
arguments or evidence before us suggests that use of an animation instead of
a dialogue for inclusion of a reader in this type of device would have been
5
Appeal2018-002345
Application 14/204,396
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art."
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) ( citing KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21
(2007)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 6,
9, 11, 12, 15, 21, 23, and 25, which Appellant does not argue separately.
Appeal Br. 11.
CLAIMS 20, 22, 24, AND 26
Findings and Conclusions
The Specification discloses a drag pattern 540 with two intersections
550, 555 that satisfy a deletion condition that the number of intersections is
greater or equal to a threshold of one. Spec. 20. Drag pattern 540 is
illustrated in the Specification's Figure 9B, reproduced below.
fi40
6
Appeal2018-002345
Application 14/204,396
The Specification's Figure 9B illustrates drag pattern 540 going
through chat item 530. The drag pattern crosses the boundary of chat item
530 six times. However, only two intersections 550, 555-points where the
drag pattern crosses back over itself to form loops-are specifically
characterized as representing intersections. Spec. ,r 20.
The Examiner finds that Sakata, by discriminating "an overlap of [a]
locus of a single stroke of [a] handwritten input with a proximity area
constitute from a range of a predetermined distance from [a] figure or
character string" (Sakata col. 2, 11. 57---60), teaches or suggests the claim 20
recitation directed to wherein the deletion condition comprises a single drag
trajectory having at least a preset number of intersections (Final Act. 6
( citing Sakata col. 2, 11. 43---61; Chen. Figs. 3-5); Ans. 5).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Sakata is directed to
use of "an overlap of a locus of a single stroke of the handwritten input with
a proximity area" rather than to "a single drag traiectory having at least a
preset number of intersections," in the manner recited in claim 20. Appeal
Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 7.
Analysis
The Specification makes clear that the claimed intersections of a
single drag trajectory encompass points where the drag trajectory crosses
with itself (i.e. where there are loops in the drag trajectory) rather than points
where the drag trajectory crosses with something else (e.g., the border of a
chat item). See Spec. 20, Fig. 9B ( only the points creating the two loops in
drag pattern 540 identified as "intersections"). Thus, Sakata's overlap
discrimination-which is directed to whether a handwritten input comes into
proximity with a figure or character string (see, e.g., Sakata col. 2, 11. 43-
7
Appeal2018-002345
Application 14/204,396
61 }-falls outside the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the
Specification, of the claimed intersections of a single drag trajectory. The
Examiner does not show the other disclosures in Sakata, or in Chen, teach or
suggest use of such intersections in delete conditions. See Final Act. 6; Ans.
5. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Sakata and Chen teaches or suggests "wherein the deletion
condition comprises a single drag trajectory having at least a preset number
of intersections," as recited in claim 20, is in error because it is not
supported by the cited disclosures of Sakata and Chen. Appeal Br. 12.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 20, and claims 22, 24, and 26 (which merely recites a
preset number of intersections of two).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12,
15, 21, 23, and 25.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 20, 22, 24, and
26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8