Ex Parte Lehto

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 12, 2011

10978598 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 12, 2011)

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.
10/978,598 11/01/2004 Julia Lehto 037145-7301 2800
30542 7590 10/12/2011
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
P.O. BOX 80278
SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-0278
EXAMINER
HUTTON JR, WILLIAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JULIA LEHTO
____________

Appeal 2010-002361
Application 10/978,598
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-002361
Application 10/978,598

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a method and device for modifying a
word completion dictionary.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer implementable method of modifying a word
completion dictionary, the method comprising:

presenting a word completion dictionary, wherein the word
completion dictionary includes a plurality of words that may be
selected while entering text in a text entry application; and

presenting two or more dictionary editing options, wherein
selection of a dictionary editing option allows a user to further
directly modify a word within the word completion dictionary.

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Griffin (US 2005/0283725 A1; issued Dec. 22, 2005)
and Hachamovitch (US 6,377,965 B1; issued Apr. 23, 2002).

ANALYSIS
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Griffin. Appellant focuses on Hachamovitch and contends this reference
“merely discloses adding or deleting name-completion pairs from a
suggestion list without teaching or suggesting direct modification of a word
in the dictionary” (App. Br. 7).
Appeal 2010-002361
Application 10/978,598

3
Hachamovitch discloses a user may edit completion data by
modifying the contents of a completion entry edit box (col. 13, ll. 21-23).
Hachamovitch also discloses a word interface that includes “Add,” “Delete,”
and “Commands Bar” buttons (col. 13, ll. 44-53). Appellant’s Abstract
states “Dictionary editing options include, but are not limited to, add, delete,
edit, mark, and unmark” (see also Spec. ¶ [0034]). Thus, the claim language
does not preclude the Examiner’s interpretation of Hachamovitch teaching
an “editing option allows a user to . . . directly modify a word within a
word dictionary” (Ans. 10-11). Thus, as the claims are broadly written,
and as the Examiner correctly finds, Hachamovitch discloses a selection of a
dictionary editing option to further directly modify a word completion
dictionary, as claimed.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13, as well as dependent claims 2-6, 8-
12, and 14-19 which were not argued separately, are obvious over Griffin
and Hachamovitch.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed.

Appeal 2010-002361
Application 10/978,598

4
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)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk