Ex Parte Gunawardana et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12484532 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/484,532 06/15/2009
69316 7590 09/01/2016
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Asela J. Gunawardana
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.
326947.01 1504
EXAMINER
BALSECA, FRANKLIN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASELA J. GUNA W ARDAN A, TIMOTHY S. PAEK,
and CHRISTOPHER A. MEEK1
Appeal2015-003924
Application 12/484,532
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, SHARON PENICK, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-9 and 13-20, which are all of the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to predictive constraints to improve accuracy
in user interfaces such as virtual keyboards. Abstract.
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the relevant
limitation emphasized:
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Microsoft Corp. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-003924
Application 12/484,532
1. A computer-readable storage device having computer
executable instructions stored therein for implementing a
predictive user interface, said instructions comprising:
a program module for receiving one or more user inputs
from a user interface device;
a program module for using a source-channel model to
perform a contextual probabilistic analysis of prior user inputs to
determine a current probabilistic user input context and using this
input context to modify the user interface prior to receiving a
next user input to increase a likelihood of receiving an expected
user input as the next user input;
a program module that, after receiving the next user input
and prior to accepting that next user input as a user input action,
uses probabilistic predictive constraints for probabilistically
evaluating the next user input with respect to the current
probabilistic user input context to determine an intended user
input action corresponding to that next user input;
wherein the predictive constraints limit the source-channel
model by forcing specific user input actions regardless of the
current user input context and the corresponding modified user
interface when conditions corresponding to specific predictive
constraints are met by the next user input; and
a program module for outputting the intended user input
action.
Rejections
Claims 1-7 and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination ofVenolia et al. (US 6,573,844 Bl; June 3,
2003) and Vargas (US 5,748,512; May 5, 1998). Final Act. 5.
Claims 8, 9, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of V enolia, Vargas, and Morin et al. (US
2010/0164897 Al; July 1, 2010). Final Act. 9.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Vargas teaches or suggests
"probabilistic predictive constraints for probabilistically evaluating the next
2
Appeal2015-003924
Application 12/484,532
user input with respect to the current probabilistic user input context to
determine an intended user input action corresponding to that next user
input," as recited in claim 1, and commensurately recited in claims 13 and
18?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Morin teaches or suggests
"applying an adjustable context weight for limiting probabilistic influence of
any component of the source-channel model," as recited in claim 18?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-9and13-17
Claim 1 recites "probabilistic predictive constraints for
probabilistically evaluating the next user input with respect to the current
probabilistic user input context to determine an intended user input action
corresponding to that next user input." The other independent claims (13
and 18) recite commensurate limitations. The Examiner relies on Vargas for
teaching this limitation. Ans. 3; Final Act. 6.
Appellants contend Vargas "merely describes dividing a frequency
value derived from a pre-computed lookup table by a measured distance"
which "fails completely to disclose or in any way suggest a probabilistic
evaluation of any sort" and "does not teach the use of a second probabilistic
evaluation of the next user input in combination with the current input
context that resulted from the first probabilistic evaluation." App. Br. 19.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner correctly finds Vargas
teaches a probabilistic evaluation of user input based on the context of prior
user input. Ans. 3; Final Act. 6. What Appellants argue is merely a
"frequency value" is actually determined based upon the previously
predicted user input: "the likelihood of a character being selected and
3
Appeal2015-003924
Application 12/484,532
entered depends on the frequency with which the character might appear in
the text based on previously entered characters." Vargas 6:3-7 (emphasis
added). For example, Vargas drives a character's frequency value down
(i.e., less likely) "[i]f the character was just erased." Id. at 7:31-32. The
Examiner combines these teachings of Vargas to show a second probabilistic
evaluation with the teachings of Venolia regarding a first probabilistic
evaluation using prior user inputs to determine an input context. Ans. 3--4;
Final Act. 3---6. Given these teachings, Appellants have not sufficiently
demonstrated any error in the Examiner's findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2-9 and 13-17, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See App. Br. 11, 21; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 18-20
For claim 18, in addition to the reasons discussed above, Appellants
also argue Morin fails to teach or suggest claim 18' s further recitation of "a
device for applying an adjustable context weight for limiting probabilistic
influence of any component of the source-channel model."
Appellants contend Morin fails to teach or suggest the claimed
adjustable context weight because Morin "disables a prediction model used
to resize keys under two conditions: 1) when a prediction cannot be made;
and 2) when the user is typing slowly" and therefore the resulting
combination "must also disable whatever prediction model can be said to be
used by that combination." App. Br. 34. However, we agree with the
Examiner that the claims as written permit a context weight of zero. Ans. 4--
5. In fact, the Specification expressly teaches that a "context weight" is
"typically ranging from 0% to 100% (but can be within any desired range)."
4
Appeal2015-003924
Application 12/484,532
Spec. if 43. "In general, at a context weight of 0% on the source model, the
predictive intelligence of the source model 105 is eliminated." Id. The
Specification also provides a virtual keyboard example "when the context
weight is set at or near 0%." Id. if 44. Thus, contrary to Appellants'
argument, the Specification expressly permits context weights that disable a
prediction model.
To the extent Appellants argue Morin differs from one embodiment in
the Specification, the Federal Circuit has "cautioned against reading
limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the
specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear
disclaimer in the specification." In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants have not persuaded us of any clear
disclaimer here, and even Appellants state "such limitation is not included in
the claim." App. Br. 35; Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18, and
claims 19 and 20, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons.
See App. Br. 11; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-9 and 13-20.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5