Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2014

11410900 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/410,900 04/26/2006 Byeong-Kuk Lee 50642 5149
1609 7590 09/25/2014
ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.
1300 19TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON,, DC 20036
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte BYEONG-KUK LEE
________________

Appeal 2012-005853
Application 11/410,900
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JERMEY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–3, 7 and 8. Claims 4–6 are canceled. App. Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Lui (US 2004/0080499 A1; published Apr. 29, 2004), Joshi (US
2003/0090473 A1; published May 15, 2003), and Fitzsimons (US
2003/0034991 A1; published Feb. 20, 2003). Ans. 5–6.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lui,
Joshi, Fitzsimons, and Kayzar (US 2006/0211384 A1; published Sept. 21,
2006). Ans. 7.
Appeal 2012-0005853
Application 11/410,900

2
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Hoerl (US 2006/0285514 A1; published Dec. 21, 2006, filed Apr. 4, 2005).
Ans. 8.
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “a data control method in a wireless
terminal which can perform various control functions, such as selection,
input, and edition of data, using a mouse function provided in the wireless
terminal.” Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A data control method using a mouse function in a wireless
terminal, comprising the steps of:
displaying, on a display unit, an input window for
inputting a plurality of characters or numerals and a keyboard
display window for displaying a keyboard of the plurality of
characters or numerals in a character/numeral input mode of the
wireless terminal;
displaying, on the input window, characters or numerals
selected by a mouse pointer on the keyboard display window,
and additionally displaying, on the keyboard display window,
editing function keys if a certain character or numeral from the
characters or numerals displayed on the input window has been
selected and dragged by the mouse pointer by moving a mouse-
pointer-generating input unit of the wireless terminal; and
performing a function of editing the certain character or
numeral by means of the editing function keys.

Appeal 2012-0005853
Application 11/410,900

3
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1 AND 3 OVER LUI, JOSHI, AND
FITZSIMONS
The Examiner finds that the combination of Lui, Joshi, and Fitzsimons
teaches all limitations of claim 1. Ans. 5–6. In particular, the Examiner
relies on Lui’s editing mode and Lui’s control inputs 120–122 (Fig. 1) for
teaching the recited additionally displaying, on the keyboard display
window, function keys if a certain character or numeral has been selected
and dragged by the mouse pointer. Ans. 5 (citing Lui, ¶¶ 20, 37).
Appellant principally argues that “Lui does not [t]each or suggest the
claimed conditional displaying feature, since control inputs 120-122 —
being permanently displayed, are not additionally displayed contingent
upon a specific condition associated with a particular timing.” App. Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner explains:
the disclosure of Lui states, “Once the data item is selected, it
may be deleted, edited, cut, or replaced using a corresponding
command[.]” This teaches of editing at a particular timing with
corresponding commands. All that [J]oshi is used for is
demonstrating that these commands were well known to come in
the form of displayed buttons.
Ans. 9.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further explains:
Lui discloses editing a data item once the data item is selected,
but does not disclose, for example, whether the editing is done
through physical keys or through conditionally displayed
editing function keys. . . . Joshi only discloses permanently
displaying editing function keys - which is the antithesis of the
claimed conditional display feature . . . .
Reply Br. 4.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred.
Appeal 2012-0005853
Application 11/410,900

4
Appellant’s Specification (¶ 35) describes:
If any character/numeral is dragged and selected by
touching and moving the optical sensing unit 170 in steps 202
through 204, the control unit 110 detects the selection in step
205, and highlights the selected character/numeral. If the
character/numeral is dragged and selected by the mouse pointer,
the control unit 110 additionally displays the editing function
keys on the keyboard display window on the display 160.
In light of Appellant’s Specification, we find that a broad, but
reasonable, interpretation of the argued limitation requires the recited
additionally displaying of function keys to be conditioned on if a certain
character or numeral has been selected and dragged by the mouse pointer.
That is, because the displaying of function keys is additional, this means the
function keys are not displayed when the condition is not met (when a
certain character or numeral has not been selected and dragged by the mouse
pointer).
With this construction, Lui’s control inputs 120–122 (Fig. 1) do not
teach or suggest the recited additionally displaying, on the keyboard display
window, function keys if a certain character or numeral has been selected
and dragged by the mouse pointer.
We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claim 3,
which depends from claim 1.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 2 OVER LUI, JOSHI, FITZSIMONS, AND
KAYZAR
Claim 2 depends from claim 1. The Examiner does not find that
Kayzar overcomes the deficiencies of Lui, Joshi, and Fitzsimons, with
respect to claim 1. See Ans. 7.
Appeal 2012-0005853
Application 11/410,900

5
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7 AND 8 OVER HOERL
The Examiner finds Hoerl describes all limitations of claim 7. Ans. 8
(citing Hoerl, ¶¶ 45, 75, 85); see also Ans. 10 (“the concept of ‘mouse
pointer of the wireless terminal’ is broadly written and could be reasonabl[y]
interpreted to describe either the screen coordinate data or the input device
movement data, which is taught be Hoerl”).
Appellant presents the following principle arguments:
(i)
[A] mouse pointer of a wireless terminal refers to a mouse
pointer controlled by a control unit of the wireless terminal to
be displayed on a display unit of the wireless terminal in
response to a signal outputted from an optical sensing unit of
the wireless terminal. See, for example, paragraph [0021] of
Appellants’ specification.
App. Br. 11.
(ii)
[U]nder Hoerl’s scheme, when the user uses the [wireless-
enabled user workstation] WUST to control the remote
computer, the mouse signal collected by the WUST is not for,
and thus does not result in, generating and displaying a mouse
pointer of the WUST on the video monitor of the WUST, but
instead is for providing the collected mouse signal to the remote
computer so that the remote computer (via its [wireless-enabled
computer interface module] WCIM) [c]an utilize the mouse
signal (received from the WUST) to generate a signal for the
mouse port of its own. In fact, Hoerl does not explicitly disclose
any mouse pointer of the WUST used for any purpose, much
less disclose[] a mouse pointer of the WUST (a wireless
terminal) used for controlling any aspect of the remote
computer (an external device).
Appeal 2012-0005853
Application 11/410,900

6
App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 6–9.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), we find this argument unavailing
because the broad claim language does not preclude a finding that Hoerl’s
cursor control device 121 meets the recited mouse pointer. Appellant’s
Specification (¶ 21) describes:
the control unit 110 controls a mouse pointer to be displayed on
a display unit 160 in response to a signal outputted from an
optical sensing unit 170, to perform a mouse function,
according to an exemplary embodiment of the present
invention. Also, the control unit 110 displays a keyboard of
characters/numerals on the display unit 160, and displays the
character/numeral selected from the keyboard of the
characters/numbers using the mouse pointer, according to a first
exemplary embodiment of the present invention.
However, this description relates to an exemplary embodiment and is
not a limiting definition. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“For example, a particular embodiment
appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the
claim language is broader than the embodiment.”) Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of “mouse pointer”
consistent with the Specification includes Hoerl’s cursor control device 121.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), we find this argument
unavailing because we see no reason why Hoerl’s wireless remote device
management system (Hoerl, Fig. 1) does not describe the recited data control
method.
Hoerl (¶ 45) describes a local user workstation wirelessly controls a
remote device utilizing a local keyboard and cursor control device, and
wirelessly receives video signals from the remote device.
Appeal 2012-0005853
Application 11/410,900

7
Hoerl (¶ 75) describes keyboard and cursor control device signals may
be transmitted bi-directionally. Hoerl (¶ 85) further describes video signals
may also be transmitted bi-directionally.
Hoerl (Fig. 1) switches the wireless terminal (WUST 115) into an
external device mouse mode in which a mouse pointer (cursor control device
121) of the wireless terminal (WUST 115) is operated to control data
displayed on the external device (WCIM 105, which sends its video signals
back to WUST 115), if the wireless terminal (WUST 115) is communicably
coupled to the external device (WCIM 105). Hoerl switches the external
device (WCIM 105) into a mode in which the external device (WCIM 105)
can be controlled by the mouse pointer (cursor control device 121) of the
wireless terminal (WUST 115). Hoerl controls the data displayed on the
external device (WCIM 105, which sends its video signals back to WUST
115) according to an operation of the mouse pointer (cursor control device
121) of the wireless terminal (WUST 115) in the external device mouse
mode.
Further, Hoerl (Fig. 1) describes operating the mouse pointer (cursor
control device 121) of the wireless terminal (WUST 115) to perform an
intended operation for the data displayed on the external device (WCIM 105,
which sends its video signals back to WUST 115). The intended operation
information of the mouse pointer (cursor control device 121) of the wireless
terminal (WUST 115) is transferred to the external device (WCIM 105).
The external device (WCIM 105) is controlled such that the external device
(WCIM 105) carries out the intended operation corresponding to the data
displayed on the external device in response to the transferred operation
information (WCIM 105, which sends its video signals back to WUST 115).
Appeal 2012-0005853
Application 11/410,900

8
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, as well as
claim 8, which is not separately argued with particularity.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7 and 8 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)(1).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj