Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

13132224 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/132,224
154241 7590
IP Spring - AI
180 N. LaSalle St.
Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
06/01/2011 SeungilKim
02/04/2019
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.
APA-KR-811825-02-US-NAT 3734
EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
ajay.gambhir@ipspring.com
docket@ipspring.com
paralegalteam@ipspring.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEUNGIL KIM 1
Appeal2017-003993 2
Application 13/132,224
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, SHARON PENICK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
non-final rejection of claims 1--4, 6-16, and 19--21. Appeal Br. 5. Claims 5,
17, and 18 are canceled. Appeal Br. 23, 25. We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b)(l). We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant indicates the real party in interest is Empire Technology
Development LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Our Decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
May 9, 2016), and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed November 2,
2016) and Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Action," mailed September
1, 2015).
Appeal2017-003993
Application 13/132,224
Representative Claims
Representative claims 1 and 16 under appeal read as follows
( emphasis added):
1. A device, comprising:
a detector configured to:
determine characteristics of a detected simultaneous touch
input,
determine whether a duration for the simultaneous touch
input exceeds a predetermined threshold time limit, and
responsive to a determination that the duration for the
simultaneous touch input does not exceed the predetermined
threshold time limit, determine whether the detected
simultaneous touch input has characteristics of a key input error;
and
an arbiter configured to reject any function corresponding
to the detected simultaneous touch input, responsive to a
determination that the detected simultaneous touch input has
characteristics of a key input error.
input;
16. A device, comprising:
a key input user interface configured to receive a key
a detector configured to:
measure time from a detected start of the key input,
determine whether the key input corresponds to an
appropriate function, and
determine whether an end to the key input has been
detected within a predetermined threshold amount of time; and
an arbiter configured to reject entry of the appropriate
function corresponding to the key input responsive to a
determination that the end to the key input has not been detected
within the predetermined threshold amount of time,
2
Appeal2017-003993
Application 13/132,224
wherein the key input user interface is a virtual keyboard
or a standard keyboard, and the key input corresponds to physical
contact with any key on the virtual keyboard or the standard
keyboard that is not designated as a special function key.
References
Tysowski US 2009/0281979 A 1
Westerman et al. US 6,570,557 Bl
("W estennan")
Davidson et al.
("Davidson")
US 2012/0167009 Al
Rejection
Nov. 12, 2009
May 27, 2003
June 28, 2012
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6-16, and 19--21 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over a combination of Tysowski,
Westerman, and Davidson. Non-Final Action 3-16.
Issues on Appeal
I. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tysowski,
Westerman, and Davidson teaches or suggests "an arbiter
configured to reject any function corresponding to the detected
simultaneous touch input, responsive to a determination that the
detected simultaneous touch input has characteristics of a key
input error," as recited in claim 1? (Appeal Br. 9--15).
II. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tysowski,
Westerman, and Davidson teaches or suggests "an arbiter
configured to reject entry of the appropriate function
corresponding to the key input responsive to a determination
that the end to the key input has not been detected within the
3
Appeal2017-003993
Application 13/132,224
predetermined threshold amount of time," as recited in claim
16? (Appeal Br. 16-19).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
I. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Tysowski, Westerman, and Davidson teaches or suggests
"an arbiter configured to reject any function corresponding
to the detected simultaneous touch input, responsive to a
determination that the detected simultaneous touch input
has characteristics of a key input error," as recited in claim
1?
The Examiner finds that the "arbiter configured to reject any function
corresponding to the detected simultaneous touch input, responsive to a
determination that the detected simultaneous touch input has characteristics
of a key input error" recited in claim 1 ("claim 1 arbiter limitation") is taught
or suggested by Tysowski. Non-Final Action 3 (citing Tysowski ,r,r 66, 75,
79); Answer 3--4.
Tysowski describes processing of keystrokes entered on an electronic
device. Tysowski Abstract. In the event of a conflict in keys activated on a
keyboard, Tysowski provides for arbitration between the keys to select a
key, utilizing a dictionary to determine the correct key. Id. Tysowski
describes, as an example, a situation in which a user intending to enter the
word "KITS" has already entered the word "KIT," but mistakenly activates
both the 'S' and the 'A' key for the last letter. Id. ,r 66. The conflict is
4
Appeal2017-003993
Application 13/132,224
resolved by consulting a dictionary to determine the likelier intent from the
two possible alternatives ("KITS" and "KIT A"). Id. ,r 66.
Appellant argues that because some function related to one of the
simultaneously pressed keys is processed, Tysowski does not teach the claim
1 arbiter limitation, requiring the rejection of "any function corresponding to
the detected simultaneous touch input." Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues
that claim 1 requires that the arbiter act "as if no key was pressed." Id.
Appellant argues that the claim requires "neither the 'S' keystroke nor the
'A' keystroke, or any other keystroke for that matter, is processed." Id.
However, Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the scope
of the claim. The claim does not require the arbiter to reject any function
corresponding to either of the touch inputs. Appellant's Specification
describes functions corresponding to detected simultaneous touch inputs to a
keyboard, e.g. "a special function key in combination, i.e., simultaneous,
with an alpha-numeric key" and "a customized special function
combination, i.e., simultaneous, of alpha-numeric keys or special function
keys, e.g., 'control-alt-delete."' Spec. ,r 20. Tysowski also describes
functionality related to two simultaneously activated keystrokes. Tysowski
With the distinction between the function of a simultaneous touch
input, on one hand, and the function of individual touch inputs, on the other,
in mind, as included both in Tysowski and the Appellant's Specification, we
conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 1 arbiter
limitation's "reject[ion ofJ any function corresponding to the detected
simultaneous touch input" admits the activation of functions that correspond,
5
Appeal2017-003993
Application 13/132,224
not to the simultaneous touch input, but instead to only one of the touch
inputs, which make up the simultaneous touch input.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in finding that Tysowski teaches or suggests the claim 1 arbiter limitation.
Appellant addresses the Examiner's additional findings that each of
Westerman and Davidson teach or suggest the claim 1 arbiter limitation.
Appeal Br. 10-15. In the interest of compact prosecution, we also address
these arguments.
Westerman describes a multi-touch system, which provides a
"modifier chord," activated in order to provide modification of the
functionality of an additional typing or pointing input. Westerman Abstract,
2:23-39. Westerman describes a situation in which a "Shift" modifier
chord is touched ( modifier chord touchdown 93) and produces two
capitalized letters, 'J' and 'I' (as a result of 'J' touch 311 and 'I' touch 312
in concert with the chord being touched between touchdown 93 and liftoff
94). Id. at Fig. 1 lA, 4:27-29, 10:45-11:35. Westerman then continues to
describe a situation in which the "Shift" modifier chord is touched (between
touchdown 93 and liftoff 94) but the shift functionality is cancelled based on
an additional simultaneous thumb touch 302 before key touches ('i' key
touch 321 and 'n' key touch 322), yielding two lowercase letters, because
"[t]he thumb touch 302 is quite likely the result of sloppy hand resting" and
cancels the modifier chord. Id. at Fig. 1 lB, 4:27-29, 10:45-11:5, 11:36-52.
The Examiner finds that Westerman teaches the claim 1 arbiter limitation.
Non-Final Action 4--5; Answer 4 (quoting with emphasis portions of
Westerman 11:36-52).
6
Appeal2017-003993
Application 13/132,224
Appellant argues that the example illustrated by Figure 1 lA of
Westerman does not teach the claim 1 arbiter limitation because Westerman
teaches that a key touch that precedes the modifier chord touchdown or
follows modifier chord liftoff should not be capitalized. Appeal Br. 11-12.
However, this example from Westerman does not correspond to the
detection of a simultaneous touch input, as this describes a situation in which
no simultaneous input occurs. Appellant also discusses Figure 1 lB of
Westerman, arguing that making the choice between an uppercase or
lowercase letter when a simultaneous key touch of the modifier chord and a
letter key occurs is not acting "as if no key was pressed." Id. at 12-13. This
argument is substantively the same as that made and addressed with respect
to Tysowski, supra, and is likewise unpersuasive as not commensurate with
the scope of claim 1.
Additionally, we note that the cancellation of the modifier chord that
occurs in Westerman while the modifier chord is touched (between
touchdown 93 and liftoff 94) occurs as a result of the thumb touch input 302,
simultaneously, which leads to the cancellation of functionality of the
modifier chord. Westerman Fig. 11 B, 11 :41-50. In this situation, the
simultaneous touch input (modifier chord and thumb touch input) leads to
the cancellation of the modifier chord - "as if no key was pressed" - and
if a letter key is pressed it is not capitalized. Thus, even under the
Appellant's narrow reading of "reject[ion of] any function corresponding to
the detected simultaneous touch input," Westerman can be seen to teach or
suggest the rejection of any function (for the thumb touch input 302 or the
modifier chord) when they are simultaneously input.
7
Appeal2017-003993
Application 13/132,224
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in finding that Westerman teaches or suggests the claim 1 arbiter limitation.
Davidson describes the automatic correction of a text string, where
"keystroke timing information is used to identify errors such as transposed,
double, and extra adjacent or nearly adjacent characters." Davidson ,r 11
( emphasis added), Abstract. Davidson describes that:
keystroke timing information is evaluated at least in part by
comparing the timing of observed keystroke events with a
baseline. For example, in some embodiments a baseline typing
speed data is determined and used as a baseline to which to
compare observed keystroke events. If the observed time
difference between successive events is less than a corresponding
baseline, for example for the same character pair, by more than a
threshold amount, then a replacement candidate associated with
an error with respect to the character pair, such as a double strike,
transposition, or other error, is ranked more highly as a potential
replacement for the string entered by the user.
Id. ,r 15. The Examiner finds that Davidson teaches the claim 1 arbiter
limitation. Non-Final Action 5; Answer 5---6.
Appellant argues that the example referenced in Davidson ("theere"
being typed, with "ee" being erroneous key input) would require the
consecutive activation of the 'e' key, which would not be a "simultaneous
touch input." Appeal Br. 13. However, while this example might not
suggest the detection of simultaneous touch input, Davidson discusses not
just "double" errors, but also such as "extra adjacent or nearly adjacent
characters." Davidson ,r 11. Appellant's focus only on one example in
Davidson does not persuade us of Examiner error. While extra adjacent
keys might be activated before or after a correct key, Davidson, with its
discussion of the tracking of key down and key up events (id. ,r 13) and of a
very small keyboard causing more "double stroke type errors" (id. ,r 17) at
8
Appeal2017-003993
Application 13/132,224
least suggests that such extra adjacent key press events might be
simultaneous with an intended key press. Thus, we do not agree with
Appellant that Davidson is limited to errors relating to consecutive, and not
simultaneous, keystrokes.
Appellant additionally argues that the keystroke timing information in
Davidson finds errors if a shorter than baseline time occurs between
keystroke events, and, thus, Davidson does not teach or suggest the arbiter
configured to reject entry based on a prior determination of" whether the
detected simultaneous touch input has characteristics of a key input error"
based on "whether a duration for the simultaneous touch input exceeds a
predetermined threshold time limit" as required by claim 1. With respect to
this determination, however, the Examiner relies on teachings or suggestions
of Westerman. Non-Final Action 4. The claim 1 arbiter limitation is
responsive to the determination ( which the Examiner finds to be taught or
suggested in Westerman) that key input error characteristics are determined,
and we are not persuaded by this argument of Examiner error in finding
Davidson teaches or suggests the claim 1 arbiter limitation.
Appellant additionally argues that Davidson does not teach or suggest
"reject[ing] any function corresponding to the detected" erroneous input
because Davidson teaches suggesting a correction. This argument is
substantively the same as that made and addressed with respect to Tysowski,
supra, and again it is unpersuasive as not commensurate with the scope of
claim 1.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 as obvious in view of the combination of Tysowski,
Westerman, and Davidson. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
9
Appeal2017-003993
Application 13/132,224
of claim 1. Independent claim 6 and dependent claims 2--4 and 7-15 are
argued on the same basis. Appeal Br. 16, 20. For the same reasons
discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims as well.
II. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Tysowski, Westerman, and Davidson teaches or suggests
"an arbiter configured to reject entry of the appropriate
function corresponding to the key input responsive to a
determination that the end to the key input has not been
detected within the predetermined threshold amount of
time," as recited in claim 16?
The Examiner finds that the "arbiter configured to reject entry of the
appropriate function corresponding to the key input responsive to a
determination that the end to the key input has not been detected within the
predetermined threshold amount of time" recited in claim 16 ("claim 16
arbiter limitation") is taught or suggested by Westerman. Non-Final Action
12-13 (citing Westerman Figs. 1 lA-13, 11:5-12:45); Answer 7-8.
Appellant argues that Westerman does not "reject entry of the
appropriate function corresponding to [a] ... key input," describing again
Westerman's discussion of not capitalizing a letter (e.g., processing lower
case 'a' rather than upper case 'A') if the shift chord modifier has not yet
been touched (before touchdown) or if the shift chord modifier is no longer
being touched (after liftoff). Appeal Br. 18. Appellant concludes, "[c]learly
the example does not correspond to 'an arbiter configured to reject entry of
the appropriate function corresponding to the key input responsive to a
determination that the end to the key input has not been detected within the
predetermined threshold amount of time,' as recited in Claim 16." Id.
10
Appeal2017-003993
Application 13/132,224
Appellant's focus on the one example of a key press from Figure 1 lA,
without reference to the rest of the examples discussed in Westerman, does
not convince us that the Examiner erred in finding the teaching or suggestion
of the claim 16 arbiter limitation in Westerman. The discussion in
Westerman that an extended touchdown on a shift modifier chord may be
"just resting the hand sloppily" or "sloppy hand resting," and that the chord
would be cancelled if a thumb touch 3 02 occurs during the extended
touchdown at least suggests the claim 16 arbiter limitation of rejecting entry
of the appropriate function (shift) if no end to the key input proceeds beyond
a predetermined threshold amount of time. Westerman 11 :6-52.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 16 as obvious in view of the combination of Tysowski,
Westerman, and Davidson. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 16. Independent claim 20 and dependent claims 19 and 21 are
argued on the same basis. Appeal Br. 19--20, 21. For the same reasons
discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims as well.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-16, and
19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over a combination of
Tysowski, Westerman, and Davidson.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11