Ex Parte Pasquero et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

13564070 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/564,070 08/01/2012
93377 7590 06/22/2016
BlackBerry Limited (Finnegan)
2200 University A venue East
Waterloo, ON N2K OA 7
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jerome Pasquero
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.
11298.0354-01000 1003
EXAMINER
THERIAULT, STEVENB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
portfolioprosecution@blackberry.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROME P ASQUERO, DONALD SOMERSET
MCCULLOCH MCKENZIE, and JASON TYLER GRIFFIN
Appeal 2014-008711
Application 13/564,070
Technology Center 2100
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008711
Application 13/564,070
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
26, 28, and 30-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to touchscreen keyboard with
correction of previously input text. Abstract.
Claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
26. A method for correcting text input on an electronic device,
compnsmg:
receiving a character input reflecting selection of a set of keys on
a virtual keyboard;
displaying a set of characters based on the received character
input;
detecting a swipe gesture in a designated direction;
determining whether a length of the swipe gesture exceeds
threshold length; and
causing, when the detected swipe gesture is determined to exceed
the threshold length, deletion of at least one of the set of
displayed characters.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Song
Dolenc
Katakoa
US 2011/0205160 Al Aug. 25, 2011
US 2013/0007606 Al Jan. 3, 2013
US 2013/0067411 Al Mar. 14, 2013
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
2
Appeal2014-008711
Application 13/564,070
Claims 26, 28, and 30-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Song or, in the alternative, under 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Song in view of Dolenc.
Claims 26, 28, and 30-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Song or, in the alternative, under 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Song in view of Kataoka.
ISSUES
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Song, either alone or in combination with Dolenc or Kataoka, teaches
the limitations of "determining whether a length of the swipe gesture
exceeds threshold length; and causing, when the detected swipe
gesture is determined to exceed the threshold length, deletion of at
least one of the set of displayed characters" as recited in claim 26.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and the Final
Rejection, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection of Claims 26, 28, and 3{)-43 under 35 US.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Song
Appellants argue that Song does not disclose the limitation of
"determining whether a length of the swipe gesture exceeds threshold
length; and causing, when the detected swipe gesture is determined to
exceed the threshold length, deletion of at least one of the set of displayed
characters" (emphases added) (App. Br. 8-9). Appellants assert that Song
merely discloses carrying out a delete command when it detects a gesture
3
Appeal2014-008711
Application 13/564,070
originating at the Cmd key and ending at a "d" key regardless of the length
of the swipe between these two keys (App. Br. 9). Appellants explain that
each key in Song covers a certain area on the display, in some cases a longer
gesture originating at the Cmd key may not reach the "d" key (and therefore
will not trigger the delete function) while a shorter gesture originating at the
Cmd key will reach the "d" key and therefore will trigger the delete function
(App. Br. 9). In other words, Appellants argue that Song only contemplates
whether there is a gesture between two keys regardless of the length of
gesture, let alone any predetermined length of the swipe gesture (App. Br. 9--
10).
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. We agree with the
Examiner's finding (Ans. 15-17; Final Act. 5-7) that Song teaches a user
can program commands by touching and dragging from a command button
to any number of letters or characters on the screen (paras. 151-167). For
example, the delete function would require a command or swipe to be
entered to extend from the command button to the "d" key (Final Act. 5).
This pattern has a specific length and the system would not perform the
deletion function unless the specific pattern of swipe was from the command
button to the "d" key (id.). The coordinates of the pattern based deletion
function require the swipe to be of a certain length for comparison purposes
so that the system knows how to perform the function (Final Act. 5-6). In
other words, the distance for the "cmd" button to "c" is not the same as
"cmd" to "d" and the distance from "cmd" to "P" is not the same as "cmd"
to "d" (Final Act. 6). Thus, the pattern recognition of the swipe would have
to exceed the distance of "cmd" to "x" or "cmd" to "c" to reach the "d"
button (Final Act. 6). The pattern comparison tracks the number of keys that
are crossed to get to the last point of swipe so as to know or compare how to
4
Appeal2014-008711
Application 13/564,070
get to the particular key from the start point (Final Act. 6). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner, that the Song gestures only work ifthe gesture of a
certain length is input and matched by comparison to the pattern in memory
(see paras. 114--115, 128-131).
We further agree with the Examiner that ifthe user were to swipe
from the command button to the "x" button, the pattern would not be
recognized as a deletion function and the swipe length would not have
exceeded the length needed to reach the "d" button so as to be recognized by
the pattern comparison function as the delete function (Final Act. 6; see
paras. 164--167 and paras. 114--115, 128-131).
In other words, a pattern recognition entails determining a specific
pattern of swipe necessarily having certain length which would be compared
to a pre-defined swipe (i.e., compared to the threshold length) to trigger the
delete command.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 26 as well
as the rejections of claims 28 and 30-43 for the same reasons.
Rejection of Claims 26, 28, and 3{}-43 under 35 USC§ 103(a) as
obvious over Song in view of Dalene.
Appellants argue that Song's gesture determination is based on a
defined character string pattern across two or more keys on a keyboard (see
Song's paras.114, 161; Figs. 4B and 9A), while Dolenc involves a URL
address field that is off the keyboard (App. Br. 11). Appellants argue that
the Examiner has not shown how one of ordinary skill in the art would mesh
these stark contrasts together (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants further argue that
the minimum distance teaching of Dolenc is simply incompatible with the
particular keys determination in Song (App. Br. 11-12). Appellants further
5
Appeal2014-008711
Application 13/564,070
argue that even if the references were combinable, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not modify Song's gesture determinations based on previously
stored fixed gesture patterns (see Song at Figs 5A and 6A) using Dolenc's
gesture determinations based on random-length gestures that have not been
previously stored (App. Br. 12).
We agree with the Examiner's findings in the Final Action wherein
Dolenc teaches that the length of a swipe gesture is used in a command to
delete (Final Act. 6-7). The Examiner relies on Dolenc' s teaching of
exceeding a threshold length for the deletion function to occur by showing
triggering of the deletion command once the length exceeds the hit point 440
(see Figs. 4a-4d and Ans. 7). Thus, we further agree with the Examiner's
articulated rationale of modifying Song in view of Dolenc, by modifying
Song's teaching of using the deletion command gesture pattern with the
deletion swipe gesture of Dolenc which explicitly uses length as a measure
of threshold to trigger the delete command and providing a visual feedback
to the user as a gesture progresses in deleting text (see Dolenc para. 57) and
elimination of repeated user actions on the device to delete characters on the
screen (see Dolenc paras. 28-31) providing a more accurate form of deleting
text (Final Act. 7). Note that the Examiner's cited paragraph 28 states that
the user's action of the delete command can occur on a hardware or virtual
keyboard.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." (In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
6
Appeal2014-008711
Application 13/564,070
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review."); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures.").) Rather, "if a technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." (KSR Int'! Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).)
Accordingly, we also affirm the alternative grounds of rejection of
claims 26, 28, and 30-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Song in
view of Dolenc.
Rejection of claims 26, 28, and 3{}-43 under 35 USC§ 103(a) as
obvious over Song in view of Kataoka.
Appellants argue that Kataoka does not have a threshold length and, in
fact, teaches away from any thresholds, because in Kataoka the rate function
is "proportional to the distance traveled by the swipe gesture" (App. Br. 13).
Appellants explain that a swipe gesture of any length will result in deletion
of characters, and the length of the swipe only affects the rate at which it
occurs (App. Br. 13). Thus, according to Appellants, Kataoka does not teach
or suggest "causing, when the detected swipe gesture is determined to
exceed the threshold length, deletion of at least one of the set of displayed
characters," as recited in claim 26 (App. Br. 13).
Appellants further argue that because Song teaches only whether a
gesture occurs between two fixed keys-not the length of the gesture between
those keys-it would be incompatible and inoperable with Kataoka, which,
allegedly, teaches gestures having variable random lengths (App. Br. 13).
7
Appeal2014-008711
Application 13/564,070
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. We adopt the
Examiner's findings and reasoning as set forth in the Final Action (Final
Act. 12-13). In particular we agree with the Examiner that
Kataoka teaches a function rate in conjunction with a delete button where
the user drags from the delete button a given distance a slider and based on
the length of the swipe causes the system to delete a given amount of text
(see paras. 49-85). Kataoka further teaches a base rate of function could be
performed with the process (see para 23). Kataoka teaches the base rate
function is proportional to the distance traveled by the swipe gesture (see
paras. 25-32). Appellants raise similar arguments as those raised above for
the combination of Song and Dolenc (App. Br. 13).
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kataoka and Song by
modifying the delete command gesture pattern of Song to include the
specific text directional gestures of a given length of Kataoka to allow for
more control over the delete function (Final Act. 13). The motivation to
combine Song with Kataoka comes from Kataoka to allow for a given
function such as delete to be performed based on a determination of the
distance between two locations (see para. 25).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 26 and the
rejections of claims 28 and 30-43 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Song, either alone or in
combination with Dolenc or Kataoka, teaches the limitations of
"determining whether a length of the swipe gesture exceeds threshold
8
Appeal2014-008711
Application 13/564,070
length; and causing, when the detected swipe gesture is determined to
exceed the threshold length, deletion of at least one of the set of
displayed characters" as recited in claim 26.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 26, 28, and
30-43 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) (2009).
AFFIRMED
9