Ex Parte Kim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201713862762 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/862,762 04/15/2013 Hwa-Kyung KIM 0201-0674 8010 68103 7590 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER EDWARDS, CAROLYN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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): u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.1 Appeal 2016-003457 Application 13/862,762 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 21—40, constituting all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Hwa-Kyung Kim, Jin-Ha Jun, Sung-Soo Kim, Joo-Yoon Bae, and Sang-Ok Cha are named as inventors. Appeal 2016-003457 Application 13/862,762 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to a handwriting-based user interface (“UI”) in a user terminal. Spec. 12. Claim 21, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 21. A User Interface (UI) apparatus at a user terminal, the apparatus comprising: a touch screen configured to display a memo screen; a controller configured to display a first application being executed on the touch screen, to receive and display a first handwriting image corresponding to a command for executing a second application different from the first application on the touch screen, to display text asking for additional information needed for executing the second application on the touch screen in response to the first handwriting image, to receive and display a second handwriting image corresponding to the additional information needed for executing the second application on the touch screen in response to the text, the second handwriting image being received after the first handwriting image, to execute a function of the second application using the input data according to recognized results of the first and second handwriting images, and to display a result of the function execution on the touch screen. REJECTIONS Claims 21, 22, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Jung (US 2012/0005619 Al; published Jan. 5, 2012) and Singh (US 2010/0169841 Al; published July 1, 2010). Claims 23—25, 27, 28, 30, 33—35, 37, 38, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Jung, Singh, and Kim (US 2008/0174568 Al; published July 24, 2008). 2 Appeal 2016-003457 Application 13/862,762 Claims 26, 29, 36, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U. S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Jung, Kim, Singh, and Marggraff et al. (US 2010/0039296 Al; published Feb. 18, 2010). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Jung and Singh teaches or suggests “to receive and display a second handwriting image corresponding to the additional information needed for executing the second application on the touch screen in response to the text, the second handwriting image being received after the first handwriting image,” as recited in independent claim 21 and commensurately recited in independent claim 31? The Examiner relies on the combination of Jung and Singh to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 2—7. Jung describes receiving handwriting input from a display, where a portion of the input has been demarcated. Jung H 83, 84, 101. An interpreter determines the data type of the demarcated portion, such as a date or e-mail address. Jung H 82, 86, 101. Then, a determination is made whether a rule identifying an associated application exists for the data type, such as a calendar or e-mail application. Jung 11 88, 101. If there is a rule associated with the data type, it is next determined whether more than one rule exists for the data type. Jung 1102. If so, the user will be prompted to determine which of the rules to apply to the determined data type. Jung 1103. After the interpreter receives the user’s selection, it applies the rule to the determined data type to find the associated application. Jung 1103. 3 Appeal 2016-003457 Application 13/862,762 The Examiner finds Jung does not explicitly disclose “receiving and displaying a second handwriting image,” because Jung teaches a user input for the selection of the rule to apply to the determined data type, but does not specifically teach a handwriting input for this selection. Final Act. 6; Ans. 4; Jung 1103. Accordingly, the Examiner modifies Jung with Singh. Final Act. 6—7. Appellant argues Jung “is completely silent as to how the selection occurs,” but “would appear to teach a pull down menu or check box.” App. Br. 7. Appellant contends “the Examiner mischaracterizes what is disclosed by Singh.” App. Br. 7. According to Appellant, “[i]n Singh, the drawing of the letter J (i.e. handwritten Page 4 character) is used to initiate a search, not to choose a menu button to execute as the Office Action alleges.” App. Br. 6. Appellant argues “Singh, like Jung, is silent as to how the selection of the object occurs, but one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the selection to be a touch or hover over the object, not something handwritten.” App. Br. 9. Although we agree with Appellant that Singh does not teach using handwriting when choosing a menu button to execute, we are not persuaded the combination of Jung and Singh fails to teach the disputed limitation. Jung states “[a]t block 232 the interpreter will prompt the user to determine which of the rules to apply to the determined data type. Thereafter, at block 234, the interpreter 70 receives the user’s selection[.]” Jung 1103. While we agree with Appellant that Jung is silent as to precisely how the selection occurs, we disagree with Appellant that Jung necessarily describes selection of an object (App. Br. 9) or selection from a pull down menu or check box (App. Br. 7). As the Examiner states: 4 Appeal 2016-003457 Application 13/862,762 Jung fails to mention within the specification that the user input (FIG 7, 234), which is considered the second user input, was handwritten. Singh was brought in to cure the deficiencies of Jung’s invention by showing that it is obvious that the second user input can be a handwritten user input. Ans. 4. We agree Singh describes inputting a handwritten character to initiate a search. Singh 130. Further, Appellant’s arguments address Jung and Singh in isolation, rather than as combined. However, non-obviousness “cannot be established by attacking references individually” when the rejection is based on a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Jung and Singh teaches or suggests receiving and displaying a second handwriting image (Singh’s input of a handwritten character) corresponding to the additional information needed for executing the second application on the touch screen (Jung’s prompting the user) in response to the text (Jung’s handwritten input), the second handwriting image being received after the first handwriting image (Sing’s handwriting input and Jung’s handwriting input). Moreover, both references describe use of handwriting input; therefore, we determine performing the user selection via handwriting input is one of the “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill would employ.” SeeKSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In particular, Appellant has not provided evidence or argument that combining such teachings would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” or that such a combination “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 5 Appeal 2016-003457 Application 13/862,762 Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 21 and 31. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 25 and 35, for which Appellant presents similar arguments (App. Br. 9—12), and dependent claims 22—24, 26—30 and 32—34, 36-40, which were not argued separately (App. Br. 9, 12—13). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—40 is affirmed. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation