Ex Parte HirshbergDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201813952621 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation