Ex Parte Kennedy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13204828 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/204,828 08/08/2011 Benedict John Howard Kennedy
126568 7590 09/26/2016
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
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.
CM14581 1796
EXAMINER
NGO,TONYN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENEDICT JOHN HOW ARD KENNEDY and
JAMES MORLEY-SMITH
Appeal2015-003513
Application 13/204,828
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-13, and 21-26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Symbol Technologies,
Inc. Br. 3.
2 The June 5, 2014 Final Office Action Summary's listing of claims "21-16"
as rejected and exclusion of claims 22-26 in its listing of pending claims
(Final Act. 1) appear to be typographical errors because the body of the
Appeal2015-003513
Application 13/204,828
Invention
The claims are directed to a keyboard which correlates simultaneously
pressed adjacent keys with a particular input selection. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
separating a plurality of keys of a keyboard into a
plurality of sections, each section comprising multiple
physically adjacent keys of the keyboard,
assigning a unique input to each of the plurality of
sections, such that simultaneous activation of any two or more
of the multiple physically adjacent keys of one of the sections
indicate an input that is different from another input indicated
by simultaneous activation of any other two or more of the
multiple physically adjacent keys of any of the other sections;
selecting the unique input indicated by simultaneous
activation of any two or more of the multiple physically
adjacent keys in one of the sections; and
executing a software application by a processor of a
computing device based on the selected unique input.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 9, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Son et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2010/0097321 Al;
Final Office Action rejects claims 22-26. Final Act. 3-24. Accordingly, we
treat claims 22-26 as pending and rejected.
2
Appeal2015-003513
Application 13/204,828
Apr. 22, 2010) and Khoo (US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0048986 Al; Feb. 28,
2008). Final Act. 3-12, 23-24.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Son, Khoo, and Minton (US Patent Pub. No.
2011/0083104 Al; Apr. 7, 2011). Final Act. 12-17.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Son, Khoo, and Kong (US Patent Pub.
No. 2006/0256088 Al; Nov. 16, 2006). Final Act. 18-23.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 23
Appellants contend Khoo does not teach or suggest:
assigning a unique input to each of the plurality of sections, such
that simultaneous activation of any two or more of the multiple
physically adjacent keys of one of the sections indicate an input
that is different from another input indicated by simultaneous
activation of any other two or more of the multiple physically
adjacent keys of any of the other sections,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 23. Br. 6-7.
Appellants assert Khoo teaches a keyboard with ''pairs of particular keys ...
[that] are pre-configured for generating a particular symbol" when
simultaneously pressed, but Appellants' claims require "that a unique input
assigned to a particular section is selected when any two or more of the
physically adjacent keys in that particular section [are simultaneously]
activated." Id. at 6 (some emphasis in original, some emphasis omitted).
That is, Appellants argue Khoo does not teach or suggest that "the same
symbol would be generated even if the user inadvertently presses any other
keys in a particular area (sections) of the keyboard." Id. at 7.
3
Appeal2015-003513
Application 13/204,828
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Khoo teaches "when the
key X and the key Sare simultaneously pressed, it generates the input key
TAB. When the key C and the key Dare simultaneously pressed, the input
[generated] is the'$[.'] When the key V and the key Fare simultaneously
pressed, the input [generated] is the '%[. ']" Ans. 3 (citing Khoo, Fig. 10);
Final Act. 4--5 (citing Khoo i-fi-187, Fig. 10). That is, the Examiner finds
Khoo teaches or at least suggests sections of two keys-i.e., sections defined
by the X and S keys, the C and D keys, and the V and F keys. See Ans. 3
(citing Khoo, Fig. 10). Because there are only two keys in those two-key
sections, simultaneous activation of "any two" keys in a corresponding two-
key section generates the two-key section's unique input. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Khoo teaches or suggests:
assigning a unique input to each of the plurality of sections, such
that simultaneous activation of any two or more of the multiple
physically adjacent keys of one of the sections indicate an input
that is different from another input indicated by simultaneous
activation of any other two or more of the multiple physically
adjacent keys of any of the other sections,
within the meaning of claims 1, 9, and 23. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 23.
Dependent Claims 21and22
Appellants contend the combination of Son and Khoo does not teach
or suggest:
when the simultaneously activated any two or more physically
adjacent keys include a physically adjacent key that is shared
between at least two of the plurality of sections, the method
comprising: determining a quantity of physically adjacent keys
that are simultaneously activated in each of the at least two of the
4
Appeal2015-003513
Application 13/204,828
plurality of sections; identifying a section from the at least two
of the plurality of the sections based on the determined quantity
of physically adjacent keys; selecting the unique input assigned
to the identified section,
as recited by claim 21 and similarly recited by claim 22. Br. 7-9.
Appellants argue that the combination of Son and Khoo does not teach or
suggest that "the quantity of keys that are simultaneously activated in each
of the [keyboard] sections is determined to identify" which section is
selected. See id. at 8.
The Examiner finds Khoo' s keyboard can be separated into a left
section and a right section, and that both sections can produce respective
inputs based on simultaneous key presses in their respective sections. Ans.
3--4, 7 (citing Khoo i-f 87, Figs. 2, 1 O); Final Act. 9-10, 24. While the
Examiner finds that the combination of Son and Khoo provides different
inputs for different sections, the Examiner does not make findings regarding
the identification of a section based on the number of simultaneously pressed
keys in each section when one of the simultaneously pressed keys is shared
between the sections. See Ans. 3--4, 7-9; see also Final Act. 9-10, 23-24.
That is, the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence that the
combination of Son and Khoo teaches or suggests identifying which section
provides an input based on the number of simultaneously pressed keys in
each section. Accordingly, based on this record, we do not sustain the
Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 21and22.
Remaining Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10--13, and 24-26
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for claims 2, 3, 5, 6,
10-13, and 24--26 which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Br. 9.
5
Appeal2015-003513
Application 13/204,828
For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more substantive
arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, IO-
13, and 24--26. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-3,
5, 6, 9-13, and 23-26.
We REVERSE the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 21
and 22.
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-IN-PART
6