Ex Parte Kang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

11750098 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

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.
11/750,098 05/17/2007 Tae-Young Kang 1398-055 9487
66547 7590 12/29/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
BUKOWSKI, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAE-YOUNG KANG, NHO-KYUNG HONG,
CHANG-HOON LEE, and BONG WON LEE1
Appeal 2015-000079
Application 11/750,098
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4—9, and 11—19, all pending claims of the application. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed generally to “a user interface in a
mobile terminal, and in particular, to a keypad touch user interface method
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 1.
Appeal 2015-000079
Application 11/750,098
by using fingers and a mobile terminal using the same.” Spec., 1.
Specifically, according to Appellants, a type of touch is identified and “if a
new touch is generated by a finger in the state that another finger is touching
a position on the keypad, the option window is displayed as with a right-
click function of a mouse in a personal computing environment.” Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A user interface method in a mobile terminal,
comprising:
detecting a first touch generated at a first position on a
keypad, wherein the first position is linked with a position of a
pointer displayed on a display unit of the mobile terminal;
detecting a second touch generated at a second position on
the keypad;
determining, if the first touch and the second touch are
detected at two different positions of the keypad and the second
touch is detected while the first touch continues to be detected,
whether an executable option at a current position of the pointer
is available, and displaying, if the executable option is available,
an option window on a display unit; and
executing, if a press on the keypad is received while the
first touch continues to be detected, a menu item currently
selected within the displayed option window,
wherein the first touch and the second touch are detected
by a touch sensor installed under the keypad, and
wherein the touch sensor generates a touch signal
according to a touch on the keypad, and the keypad generates a
different input signal according to a press on the keypad.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 4—9, and 11—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bisset (US 5,825,325; Oct. 20, 1998), Griffin (US
2
Appeal 2015-000079
Application 11/750,098
2006/0176280 Al; Aug. 10, 2006), and Schreiber (US 2001/0000265 Al;
Apr. 12, 2001). Final Act. 3—13.
ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments present the dispositive issue: Has the
Examiner erred by finding Bisset, Griffin, and Schreiber teach or suggest the
features of claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. App. Br. 6—16; Reply Br. 1—6. We are
not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions of Examiner error. Accordingly,
we adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action and Answer. We highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Bisset discloses the steps of
detecting first and second touches along with displaying an option window
as claimed. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Bisset, Fig. 7B, 13:4—12, 13:33—36, 14:8—
12).
Appellants characterize Bisset’s Figure 7B—7D as representing a
sequence of user interactions with a touch screen, stating, “Within each
figure, the sequence of screen displays is (1) top-left, (2) top-right, (3)
bottom-left, and (4) bottom-right, followed by the top-left screen of the next
3
Appeal 2015-000079
Application 11/750,098
figure. For example, the bottom-right screen 720 of FIG. 7B is followed by
the top-left screen 730 of FIG. 7C.” App. Br. 11.2 Appellants then argue,
[T]he Examiner compares the touch commencing in the upper-
left screen of FIG. 7B with the first touch of Claim 1, while
comparing the additional touch commencing in the lower-left
screen of FIG. 7B with the second touch of Claim 1. The
additional touch compared by the Examiner to the second touch
of Claim 1 terminates at the lower-right screen of FIG. 7B.
Meanwhile, the touch compared by the Examiner to the first
touch of Claim 1 terminates by at least the time of the lower-right
screen of FIG. 7C, where all touches are removed from the touch
pad.
Id. Appellants further argue that the display of the button menu “does not
appear before termination of both of the touches” but instead asserts the
button menu “only appears in response to the ‘three finger tap’ performed as
shown in screen 780 and 790 of FIG. 7D.” Id. Appellants contend that the
“three finger tap” (of screens 780 and 790 of Fig. 7D) is not linked with a
position of a pointer and, therefore, “the touches of the ‘three finger tap’
cannot be compared to the first touch of Claim 1, which has a position linked
to a position of a pointer displayed on a display unit.” Id. at 12.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, Bisset’s Figures 7B—7D and associated text (columns 11, 13, 14),
disclose exemplary sequences of user interactions and expressly disclose that
user interface gestures may be programmed to enable any desired function.
Ans. 5. In particular, Bisset expressly discloses,
2 We extend Appellants’ explanation such that the sequence of user
interactions at the lower right screen of Figure 7C (755) continues at the
upper left screen of Figure 7D (760) through the lower right screen of Figure
7D (790).
4
Appeal 2015-000079
Application 11/750,098
Combinations of the first, second, and perhaps additional fingers
can then enable numerous conventional functions to be
performed based on the mapping of a variety of sequences of taps
or finger movements to a set of conventional pointing device
functions, where the pointing device could be a touchpad, mouse,
trackball, joystick, or stylus, for example.
Bisset, 11:59—65. Appellants argue “the mere fact that references can be
combined or modified does not render the resultant combination obvious
unless the prior art also suggests the desirability of the combination.” App.
Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 2. However, we find that one of ordinary skill in
the art would combine the references as found by the Examiner.
Furthermore, here, Bisset expressly suggests the desirability of modifying
the mapping between user input gestures and related functions as objects of
the invention stating:
A still further object of the present invention is to provide
a method for effecting on a touchpad, through the use of multiple
finger contacts, a plurality of conventional mouse button
functions.
Yet another object of the present invention is to provide a
method and apparatus for effecting on a touchpad, through the
use of multiple finger contacts, a plurality of enhanced functions.
Bisset, 4:36-44.
Appellants further contend, for the first time in the Reply Brief, the
“scope of possible mappings of inputs to functions [(in Bisset)] is so broad,
that the mere mention of other possible mappings as alternatives to a
particular example is not sufficient to teach, disclose, or suggest other
particular mappings.” Reply Br. 3. Initially we note Appellants fail to show
good cause why this argument could not have been raised in the Appeal
Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Regardless, we remain unpersuaded of
Examiner error. Appellants provide no support for this assertion and we are
5
Appeal 2015-000079
Application 11/750,098
not aware of any case law supporting Appellants’ assertion. It is well settled
that mere attorney’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are
unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
For the reasons expressed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, claims 4—9
and 11—19 not argued separately with particularity. App. Br. 14—15. Thus,
we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4—9, and 11—19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4—9, and 11—19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6