Ex Parte HuhDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 18, 201010951250 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 18, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/951,250 09/27/2004 Jung-Chul Huh 0202-0024 6869 68103 7590 10/19/2010 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER KARIMI, PEGEMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2629 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/19/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JUNG-CHUL HUH ____________________ Appeal 2009-010076 Application 10/951,250 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-010076 Application 10/951,250 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 9-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 9 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method for inputting a character in a pocket-sized mobile communication device having a touch screen, comprising: displaying a keyboard including a plurality of keys in a first area of the touch screen, wherein the each key of the keyboard has an original touch recognizable area according to a size and location of the key; detecting a touch on the original touch recognizable area of a key of the keyboard; displaying an enlarged character corresponding only to the key in a fixed second area of the touch screen, away from the first area; determining if the touch has been released from the touch recognizable area of the key while displaying the enlarged character corresponding only to the key; inputting a character corresponding only to a key where the touch has been released off. Appellant’s Contention Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Heikkinen et al. (US 6,073,036; hereinafter “Heikkinen”) and Staggs et al. (WO 94/29788; hereinafter “Staggs”) because: [N]either reference discloses, teaches or suggests the displaying of an enlarged character corresponding only to the touched key in a fixed second area of the touch screen, away from the first area. (App. Br. 4 (emphasis added)). Appeal 2009-010076 Application 10/951,250 3 Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 9-20 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest a fixed second area of the touch screen? PRINCIPLES OF LAW Burden on Appeal The allocation of burdens requires that the USPTO produce the factual basis for its rejection of an application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967)). The one who bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability is the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). ANALYSIS Appellant presents arguments as to why the Examiner has erred. (App. Br. 5-8). We agree with Appellant’s contention above. Therefore, Appellant has established that the Examiner erred with respect to the rejection of claims 9-20 under § 103(a). CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) On this record, claims 9-20 have not been shown to be unpatentable. Appeal 2009-010076 Application 10/951,250 4 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-20 is reversed. REVERSED babc Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation