Ex Parte Hirshberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

13952621 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
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.
13/952,621 08/27/2013 David Hirshberg 5844
72352 7590 08/28/2018
David Hirshberg
14a Hasachlav Street
Haifa, 34790
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
PHAN,DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 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 DAVID HIRSHBERG
Appeal2017-001341
Application 13/952,621
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-001341
Application 13/952,621
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method of text entry for an electronic device, the electronic
device comprising:
a keyboard with a plurality of keys wherein each key is activated by
one or more keystrokes, at least one group of keystrokes partitioned into
a first keystroke and a plurality of second keystrokes, the first keystroke is
configured to output a letter group entry which generates a group of possible
letters at a letter location of a word and said second keystrokes are
configured to output a single letter entry which generates a single letter to a
letter location of a word, said group of possible letters only comprising
letters generated by all said second keystrokes of said group of keystrokes,
the method comprising:
(a) receiving a number of letter entries generated by a number of
keystrokes which corresponds to a number of letter locations of a word that a
user wants to input, wherein the number of keystrokes comprises at least one
keystroke from the first keystroke to output a single letter entry and one
keystroke from the second keystrokes to output a letter group entry;
(b) creating a list of possible words, each possible word is a word that
is created from a combination of possible letters at each of said number of
letter entries that matches with a word in a priori database of words;
( c) displaying said list of possible words to the user; and
( d) receiving from the user a selected word in said list of possible
words and providing the selected word for further processing.
2
Appeal2017-001341
Application 13/952,621
Parker
Hirshberg
Suraqui
Chiu
Prior Art
US 2002/0183100 Al Dec. 5, 2002
US 6,597,345 B2 July 22, 2003
US 2004/0104896 Al June 3, 2004
US 2010/0060585 Al Mar. 11, 2010
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-12, 14, and 16-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Parker and Hirshberg;
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Parker, Hirshberg, and Suraqui; and
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Parker, Hirshberg, and Chiu. Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "a first keystroke" that "is configured to output a letter
group entry which generates a group of possible letters." The scope of
"keystroke," read in light of the Specification, "means a single gesture on a
single key." Spec. 9:16-17. The term "letter group entry," read in light of
the Specification, "means entry of two or more possible letters into a single
letter location." Spec. 13: 17-18. We construe the term "a first keystroke"
that "is configured to output a letter group entry," read in light of the
Specification, to mean a single gesture on a single key that enters two or
more letters into a single letter location.
Claim 1 also recites "a plurality of second keystrokes" that "are
configured to output a single letter entry which generates a single letter."
The term "single letter entry," as per the Specification, "means entry of a
3
Appeal2017-001341
Application 13/952,621
specific single letter into a single letter location." Spec. 13:6-7. An
example of "single letter entry" is a multi-tap method of entering text on a
numeric keypad, where pressing the 2 key with one keystroke enters the
letter A, pressing the 2 key with two keystrokes enters the letter B, and
pressing the 2 key with three keystrokes enters the letter C. Spec. 15:9-14.
Each letter entry from such keystroke(s) is a single letter. Spec. 15: 14--16.
We construe each second keystroke of a "plurality of second keystrokes"
that "are configured to output a single letter entry," read in light of the
Specification, to mean a single gesture on a single key that enters a specific
single letter into a single letter location.
The Examiner finds that Parker teaches the claimed "second
keystrokes" in teaching a numeric keypad with probabilistic selection of a
letter from a group of possible letters, where a second press of the 4 key
outputs a single letter H, pressing the 3 key outputs a single letter E, pressing
the 5 key outputs a single letter L, and pressing the 6 key outputs a single
letter 0. Ans. 4--5. According to the Examiner, Parker discloses the first
keystroke at a key can be a letter group entry or a single letter entry. Final
Act. 5 (citing Parker ,r 23). We agree with the Examiner that Parker teaches
that a keystroke of a key on a numeric keypad outputs a single letter entry,
but disagree that the keystroke outputs a letter group entry.
In particular, the Examiner finds that Parker teaches the claimed "first
keystroke" configured to output a letter group entry in teaching a numeric
keypad where the 3 key is configured to output a letter group entry of DEF,
the 5 key is configured to output a letter group of JKL, and the 6 key is
configured to output a letter group ofMNO. Ans. 4 (citing Parker ,r 26).
We disagree with the Examiner that one keystroke on the numeric keypad of
4
Appeal2017-001341
Application 13/952,621
Parker outputs a letter group entry. We highlight that steps 230 and 250 of
Parker's Figure 3 show that a single most likely character is presented to a
user in response to a keystroke 210. If the user does not accept this single
most likely character, steps 270 and 290 show a next most likely character is
presented. Thus, contrary to the Examiner's finding, Parker teaches a
keystroke on a key of a numeric keypad outputs a single letter entry, not a
letter group entry. See Spec. 15:9-16. The Examiner has not persuasively
shown that the combination of Parker and Hirshberg teaches "a first
keystroke" that "is configured to output a letter group entry which generates
a group of possible letters" as claimed.
Claim 1 also recites "creating a list of possible words." The Examiner
finds that Parker teaches this limitation in teaching that when a stem of a
word is HEL, and a user presses the 5 key, a method calculates a probability
that the next letter is J, K, or L, based on a number of words in a dictionary
that begin HELJ, HELK, and HELL. Final Act. 5 ( citing Parker ,r 26).
Appellant contends that Parker's teaching of displaying a next letter based
on a number of words in a dictionary does not teach "creating a list of
possible words" as claimed. Reply Br. 8. We agree with Appellant. The
Examiner has not persuasively shown that the combination of Parker and
Hirschberg teaches "creating a list of possible words" as claimed.
Claim 1 recites "displaying said list of possible words to the user."
The Examiner finds that steps 260 and 2100 shown in Figure 3 of Parker
teach this limitation. Ans. 8. Appellant contends presenting the next
character, as taught by steps 260 and 2100 of Parker, does not teach
displaying a list of possible words as claimed. Reply Br. 9. We agree with
Appellant that steps 260 and 2100 shown in Figure 3 of Parker teach
5
Appeal2017-001341
Application 13/952,621
displaying the next character to the user, not a "list of possible words to the
user." The Examiner has not persuasively shown that the combination of
Parker and Hirshberg teaches "displaying said list of possible words to the
user" as claimed.
The Examiner finds that Hirshberg teaches a multifunction key, where
each side keystroke is configured to output a single letter entry, and a central
keystroke is configured to output an additional operation. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner finds that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the
keystroke of Parker as the additional operation for the central keystroke of
Hirshberg to reduce the number of keypresses. Final Act. 5---6.
However, each keystroke of Parker does not "output a letter group
entry which generates a group of possible letters" as claimed, but rather,
outputs a single letter entry as discussed above. Even if Parker and
Hirshberg were combined, the combination would not teach the claimed
"first keystroke" that "is configured to output a letter group entry which
generates a group of possible letters."
Further, adding the keystroke of Parker to the key of Hirshberg would
not reduce the number of keypresses as alleged by the Examiner. Rather,
because the numeric keypad of Parker uses the multi-tap method to select
one of several possible letters in response to one or more keystrokes, the
teachings of Parker would increase, not decrease, the number of keypresses.
The Examiner has not persuasively shown that a skilled artisan would have
added the multi-tap keystroke operation of Parker to the keys of Hirshberg.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor the rejections of
corresponding dependent claims 2-20.
6
Appeal2017-001341
Application 13/952,621
For claim 21, the Examiner finds that "all the same elements of Claim
are listed, except a first key and a plurality of second keys . . . . However, it
is required a first key and a plurality of second keys to generate a first
keystroke and a plurality of second keystrokes." Final Act. 8. The
Examiner has not shown where the prior art teaches the claimed "first key"
and "a keystroke on said first key configured to output a letter group entry."
The Examiner also finds that "the supporting rationale of the rejection
to Claim 1 applies equally as well to Claim 21." Final Act. 8. Because the
Examiner has not shown that the combination of Parker and Hirshberg
renders claim 1 obvious, the Examiner has not shown that the combination
of Parker and Hirshberg renders claim 21 obvious.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 and dependent claims 22
and 23.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-12, 14, and 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Parker and Hirshberg is reversed;
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Parker, Hirshberg, and Suraqui is reversed;
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Parker, Hirshberg, and Chiu is reversed.
REVERSED
7