Ex Parte KamiyabuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 16, 201511971721 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MITSURU KAMIYABU ____________ Appeal 2012-010764 Application 11/971,7211 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KEN B. BARRETT, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and ELIZABETH A. LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judges. LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL On appeal are the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–21. (Br. 2; Ans. 3.) An oral hearing was held on January 6, 2015. Appellant seeks reversal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The Specification describes a portable terminal into which a plurality of character types can be entered, recorded, and processed. (Spec. 1, ll. 10– 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha. (Br. 1.) Appeal 2012-010764 Application 11/971,721 2 12.) For example, the Specification explains that using multiple character types may be necessary to enable a mobile phone to enter kana (Japanese syllabic characters) as well as numbers and letters of the (Roman) alphabet. (See id. at 1, ll. 14–21.) Claim 1 is representative: 1. A portable information terminal, comprising: a display unit; an operation unit having a first operation key and a second operation key for allowing a user to perform an operation for character entry, and a third operation key; a control unit for controlling processing for said character entry; and a storage unit storing at least one second character type array table for displaying in a listed manner a plurality of characters included in said second character type, and storing at least one third character type array table for displaying in a listed manner a plurality of characters included in a third character type, wherein said control unit includes a display control unit for causing said display unit to display a first region and a second region, said first region corresponds to an entry standby display in a character entry state of a first character type via said first operation key, and said second region corresponds to a display for character entry in a character entry state of a second character type via said second operation key, said control unit further includes an entry control unit accepting entry of a character of said first character type or said second character type in accordance with said first operation key or said second operation key, while maintaining the character entry state of said first character type and the character entry state of said second character type, and in the character entry state of said first character type, if an operation via said third operation key in a first manner is accepted, said display control unit causes any of said at least Appeal 2012-010764 Application 11/971,721 3 one second character type array table to be displayed, and if an operation via said third operation key in a second manner is accepted, said display control unit causes any of said at least one third character type array table to be displayed, and wherein in the character entry state of said first character type, the characters displayed in said second character type array table and said third character type array table are characters that are not associated with the keys of the first operation key. (Br. 18–19 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: 1. Claims 1–4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, and 19–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kraft,2 in view of Balakrishnan3 and Nelson.4 (Ans. 4.) 2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kraft, in view of Balakrishnan and Nelson, and further in view of The Unicode Standard, Version 3.2.5 (Ans. 17.) 3. Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kraft, in view of Balakrishnan and Nelson, and further in view of Sasaki.6 (Ans. 18.) 2 U.S. Patent No. US 6,487,424 B1, issued Nov. 26, 2002. 3 U.S. Patent No. 5,952,942, issued Sept. 14, 1999. 4 U.S. Patent No. US 6,987,991 B2, issued Jan. 17, 2006. 5 The Unicode Standard, Version 3.2, Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms, Range: FF00–FFEF (2002). 6 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2006/0170651 A1, published Aug. 3, 2006. Appeal 2012-010764 Application 11/971,721 4 4. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kraft, in view of Balakrishnan and Nelson, and further in view of Burner.7 (Ans. 19.) FINDINGS OF FACT We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, as set forth on pages 4–20 of the Answer. We note the following for emphasis. Kraft describes a method for entering data into a portable phone to enable faster entry of different character types, “such as normal text entry, calculator entry, music entry, and entry of Chinese signs.” (Kraft col. 1, ll. 47–48.) The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Kraft’s alphanumeric keys, roller key, and asterisk key function as first, second, and third operation keys. (Ans. 4 (citing Kraft Fig. 1; col. 7, ll. 51–53).) Further, Kraft teaches a “second character type array table” through its lists of upper-case and lower-case letters, and a “third character type array table” through its “special character list.” (Ans. 5 (citing Kraft col. 7, ll. 17–20, 51).) Although Kraft teaches these and other aspects of claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kraft fails to disclose the last two limitations of claim 1, i.e., while in the character entry state of the first character type, (1) the operation of a third operation key in a first manner to cause display of a second character type array table, and in a second manner to cause display of a third character type array table, and (2) that the characters displayed in the second and third character type array tables are characters that are not associated with the keys of the first operation key. (Ans. 7, 8.) For these elements, the Examiner turns, respectively, to Balakrishnan and Nelson. 7 U.S. Patent No. US 6,282,548 B1, issued Aug. 28, 2001. Appeal 2012-010764 Application 11/971,721 5 Balakrishnan teaches a method and apparatus for inputting text messages using a numeric keypad. (Balakrishnan col. 1, ll. 5–8.) Balakrishnan describes using a “press/hold manner” to allow a user to enter numbers and Roman letters, and to switch among modes, for example to allow the user to enter characters, punctuation, or other symbols in Chinese. (Id. at col. 9, l. 33–col. 10, ll. 5.) Thus, the Examiner explains that “Balakrishnan teaches using a long-pressing on a key to switch from one character set to the next, where the character set may be displayed on the screen.” (Ans. 7.) “[M]odify[ing] the table based character entry system taught by Kraft to include the long press character set selection method of Balakrishnan in order to obtain a table based character entry system with long press character set selection” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. (Id. at 8.) Motivation for the combination would have come from the desire to “reduce the number of keys used when selecting a character type.” (Id.) Nelson generally relates to inputting emoticons into text messages. (Nelson Abstract.) The Examiner finds that in Nelson, “the character arrays displayed by a third input key are not associated with the first input key as they are selected and added to the text string through the third input key alone.” (Ans. 8 (citing Nelson col. 4, ll. 2–6, 39–42, 51–56).) Combining Nelson with Kraft and Balakrishnan would have been obvious, the Examiner explains, “to obtain a table based character entry system with long press character set selection and single key character input.” (Ans. 9.) The motivation to do so would have been to “reduce the number of keys used when selecting a specific character.” (Id.) Appeal 2012-010764 Application 11/971,721 6 DISCUSSION A. Rejection 1 We begin by noting that Appellant argues claims 1, 20, and 21 together, and focuses on claim 1. (Br. 10–12.) Appellant also recites the limitations of claim 6, but offers no argument except to say that the cited references “fail to teach at least the features of claim 6 in combination with claim 1.” (Id. at 12.) This assertion fails to point out with particularity why the limitations of claim 6 are separately patentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Similarly, Appellant notes the limitations of claim 17 (albeit in regard to Rejection 4, which does not apply to claim 17, rather than Rejection 1), but does not offer any further analysis of that claim. (Br. 13.) No other claims are separately argued as to this rejection in Appellant’s Brief. Accordingly, we treat claim 1 as representative of all of the claims subject to Rejection 1, see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), and address Appellant’s three briefed arguments regarding the patentability of claim 1 in turn. First, Appellant argues that Kraft teaches one character type array table, and one input mode, but not displaying a character type array table for plural input modes. (Br. 10–11.) Specifically, Appellant asserts that Kraft’s first display part displays “entered” information, while Kraft’s second display part displays a string of “possible information candidates.” (Id. at 10 (quoting Kraft col. 5, ll. 33–36).) This second display part in Kraft, Appeal 2012-010764 Application 11/971,721 7 according to Appellant, is not for a separate input mode. (Id.) The Examiner responds that Kraft teaches both displaying an array of characters for the user to select to input into a message (Ans. 22 (citing Kraft col. 6, ll. 1–9)), and that the array of characters can be changed from, for example, upper to lower case letters, depending on the selected language (id. (citing Kraft col. 7, ll. 15–21).) We agree with the Examiner’s position. As the Examiner notes, Kraft teaches multiple character type array tables through its lists of, for example, upper-case and lower-case letters, as well as special characters. (See Ans. 5 (citing Kraft col. 7, ll. 17–20, 51).) Thus, Kraft contemplates multiple modes for entry of different types of characters, and further contemplates use of characters from various languages. (See supra at 4; Kraft col. 2, ll. 19–26.) Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that “Kraft teaches a character type array table (i.e. the different list containing different characters) for plural input modes (i.e. the upper case and lower case modes).” (Ans. 22.) Second, Appellant argues that Balakrishnan’s alphabet mode and numeric mode do not constitute display of second and third character type array tables by the display control unit. (Br. 11.) The Examiner responds that Kraft “teaches a manner of changing the display of character input tables based on the mode selected. Balakrishnan, on the other hand, teaches changing input modes by pressing and holding a key for a predetermined time.” (Ans. 23.) We agree with the Examiner. Appellant’s second argument amounts to a critique of Balakrishnan individually rather than the combination of references cited by the Examiner for the claimed limitations, and is thus Appeal 2012-010764 Application 11/971,721 8 unpersuasive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“But one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kraft and Balakrishnan “provides a method of changing the list of characters (i.e. the claim character type array tables) displayed by the input mode as taught by Kraft where the input mode is changed by pressing a key in two different time-based manners as taught by Balakrishnan.” (Ans. 23.) Third, Appellant asserts that neither Kraft nor Balakrishnan discloses display of a second or third character type array table based on operation of a third operation key in a first or a second manner. (Br. 12.) As we have already explained in addressing Appellant’s first and second arguments, we agree with the Examiner that Kraft and Balakrishnan together teach display of a second or third character type array table. As for this display being based on the operation of a third operation key in a first or second manner, we agree with the Examiner that Balakrishnan “teaches changing input modes by pressing and holding a key for a predetermined time.” (Ans. 24.) As the Examiner acknowledges, Balakrishnan teaches display of characters in a “set cyclical order.” (Id.) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, however, this distinction between Balakrishnan and claim 1 does not impair the prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner does not rely specifically on this mechanism of Balakrishnan. Rather, the Examiner relies on Balakrishnan for the broader teaching of changing input modes through pressing and holding a key, thus creating “[m]ultiple manners of interacting with a key.” (Ans. 24.) The combination of Kraft and Balakrishnan, then, teaches: Appeal 2012-010764 Application 11/971,721 9 [I]f an operation via said third operation key in a first manner (i.e. selection of a key that is released during the timeframe a character is displayed as taught by Balakrishnan) is accepted, said display control unit causes any of said at least one second character type array table to be displayed (i.e. the character table changes the list displayed to be that of the chosen first mode as taught by Kraft), and if an operation via said third operation key in a second manner (i.e. selection of a key that is released during the timeframe a number is displayed as taught by Balakrishnan) is accepted, said display control unit causes any of said at least one third character type array table to be displayed (i.e. the character table changes the list displayed to be that of the second mode as taught by Kraft). (Ans. 25.) Having fully considered each of Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 1, and having found none to be persuasive, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims 2–4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, and 19–21 fall with claim 1. B. Rejections 2 and 3 As Appellant presents no separate arguments regarding these rejections or the affected claims, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 9, 12, and 18. C. Rejection 4 Appellant’s argument regarding the patentability of claim 16 consists of pointing out support in the Specification for the claim, and the following statement: “Appellant submits that Kraft, Balakrishnan, Nelson, and Burner, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose features recited in claim 16, in combination with claim 1.” (Br. 13.) As noted above with respect to claim 6, such a statement is insufficient to point out with particularity why the limitations of claim 16 are separately patentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37; see Appeal 2012-010764 Application 11/971,721 10 also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. CONCLUSION The rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–21 are affirmed for the reasons of record. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation