Ex Parte Huh

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 18, 2010

10951250 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 18, 2010)

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