Ex Parte Peterson et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 6, 201914301964 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/301,964 06/11/2014 58127 7590 05/06/2019 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Nathan J. Peterson 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. RPS920140013(710.336) 1014 EXAMINER BRINICH, STEPHEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2019 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 NATHAN J. PETERSON, JENNIFER LEE-BARON, AMY LEIGH ROSE, and JOHN SCOTT CROWE Appeal2018-006910 Application 14/301,964 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention automatically switches an electronic device's keyboard layout responsive to language context determinations associated with user input. In one aspect, a subset of input keys is changed 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Lenovo (Singapore) PTE, LTD. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-006910 Application 14/301,964 automatically to match those of a different language. See generally Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 3-5. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method, comprising: implementing, using a processor, a current key input layout of a keyboard layout of an input component of an electronic device, wherein the current key input layout corresponds to a current language setting of the electronic device; detecting, using a processor, a language context associated with input of a user, using data accessible to the electronic device; determining, using a processor, if the language context is mismatched with the current language setting; and responsive to the determining, automatically switching, using a processor, the current key input layout of the keyboard layout of the input component to a different key input layout of the keyboard layout, wherein the different key input layout corresponds to a new language setting matching the language context detected and wherein the automatically switching comprises changing a least a subset of the input keys of the keyboard layout to input keys matching the new language setting. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rang (US 2009/0170536 Al; published July 2, 2009) and Bradford (US 2015/0309984 Al; published Oct. 29, 2015). Ans. 2-9. 2 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed January 30, 2018 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed April 26, 2018 ("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 26, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2018-006910 Application 14/301,964 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND CONTENTIONS Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Rang discloses, among other things, ( 1) implementing a current key input layout of a keyboard layout of an electronic device's input component, where the current key input layout corresponds to a current language setting; and (2) determining if a detected language setting associated with user input is mismatched with the current language setting. Ans. 2-3. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Rang does not automatically switch the current key input layout to a different key input layout corresponding to a new language setting matching the detected language context, the Examiner nonetheless cites Bradford as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. See Ans. 4--5. Appellants argue that not only did the Examiner fail to articulate a reason why one skilled in the art would have combined the cited references as proposed, let alone provide an evidentiary basis for such a finding, but Bradford is said to be non-analogous art in any event. App. Br. 12-15, 18; Reply Br. 15-17, 21. Appellants add that the cited references also do not teach or suggest implementing a current key input layout, let alone automatically switching that layout to a different key input layout responsive to determining that a detected language context is mismatched with the current language setting as claimed. App. Br. 15-18; Reply Br. 17-20. ISSUES (1) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Rang and Bradford collectively would have taught or suggested ( 1) implementing a current key input layout of a keyboard layout of an electronic device's input 3 Appeal2018-006910 Application 14/301,964 component, where the current key input layout corresponds to a current language setting; and (2) automatically switching that layout to a different key input layout responsive to determining that a detected language context is mismatched with the current language setting, where the switching includes changing at least a subset of input keys to those matching the new language setting as recited in claim 1? (2) Is the Examiner's proposed combination of the cited references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? ANALYSIS We begin by noting that claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, ( 1) determining if a detected language context is mismatched with a current key input layout, and (2) switching the current key input layout to a different key input layout responsive to that determination. Our emphasis on the term "if' underscores a conditional limitation that, in a recited method, typically need not be satisfied to meet such a claim. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential); see also MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2111.04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing Schulhauser). But here, the term "if' is recited as part of a positive determination step, namely determining if a detected language context is mismatched with a current key input layout, and then automatically switching the current key input layout to a different layout responsive to that determination. Because the mismatch must be determined under the terms of claim 1, it is not conditional, but rather a concrete mismatch determination. 4 Appeal2018-006910 Application 14/301,964 Turning to the rejection, the Examiner cites Rang for teaching, among other things, (1) implementing a current key input layout of a keyboard layout of an electronic device's input component, where the current key input layout corresponds to a current language setting; and (2) determining if a detected language setting associated with user input is mismatched with the current language setting. Ans. 2-3. As Rang explains, Rang's system controls a keypad input mode for entered text messages that ( 1) determines a language setting for the message, and (2) sets the keypad input mode to a dictionary-based disambiguation mode related to the determined language setting. Rang, Abstract; ,r,r 33, 39; Fig. 2 (steps S 1 and S2). Notably, entered text is examined for further dictionary-based disambiguation modes related to languages different to the current language setting and, if there is an associated match, the language and associated keypad disambiguation mode is changed accordingly. Rang ,r 40; Fig. 2 (steps S3, S4, S8, and S10). The clear import of this discussion is that, upon determining a "mismatch" with the initial language setting, Rang automatically switches the language and associated keypad disambiguation mode to a new language perceived to correspond to that which the user entered on the keypad. Although the key input layout itself is not changed responsive to this mismatch determination, we nonetheless see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Bradford for at least suggesting changing a key input layout automatically responsive to language changes in textual input. Not only does Bradford's system analyze a user's textual input to identify the associated language, but the system can also assign a particular keyboard to a given language by determining what keyboard most users of a certain language choose, and then provide that keyboard. Bradford ,r,r 26, 39. 5 Appeal2018-006910 Application 14/301,964 Given these teachings, Rang and Bradford collectively at least suggest automatically switching a current key input layout to a different key input layout responsive to the recited language context mismatch determination. In short, providing a language-based keyboard switching functionality, such as that in Bradford, in connection with Rang's system as the Examiner proposes would have been at least an obvious variation that uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that Rang uses a mechanical keyboard as Appellants contend. See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 18. And even assuming, without deciding, that Rang's system is limited to mechanical keyboards as Appellants seem to suggest, Appellants have still not shown that adapting Rang' s system with its purported mechanical keyboard to use more modem electronic components, such as a virtual keyboard on a touch-screen display as in Bradford's paragraph 38, to gain the commonly understood benefits of such an adaptation, would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. Indeed, the Examiner's proposed adaptation to Rang's system is consistent with similar conventional electronic updates to mechanical devices-a technological trend that is common in the electronics industry. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("Applying modem electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years."). In short, the fact that Rang ostensibly uses a mechanical keyboard is not dispositive here, particularly given the conventional electronic updates to mechanical keyboards, such as virtual keyboards in Bradford's paragraph 38 that are consistent with similar 6 Appeal2018-006910 Application 14/301,964 electronic updates to mechanical devices noted in Leapfrog. In any event, the Examiner's rejection is not based on Rang alone, but rather Rang and Bradford collectively. See Ans. 2-5. Therefore, Appellants' arguments regarding Rang's individual shortcomings in this regard (see App. Br. 15- 17; Reply Br. 18-19) do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants' contention that Bradford is non-analogous art (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 20-21) is likewise unavailing. Prior art is analogous if it is (1) from the same field of endeavor regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although Bradford develops language models as noted in the Abstract, Bradford nevertheless implements various automatic language-based functions that are at least reasonably pertinent to Appellants' problem, including (1) analyzing a user's text input to identify an associated language; (2) assigning a particular keyboard to a given language by determining what keyboard most users of a certain language choose; and then (3) providing that keyboard. Bradford ,r,r 26, 39. Accord Ans. 5 (noting that Bradford is directed to a keyboard implementation that adapts to a user's language preference). In short, Bradford is analogous art, and we see no reason why its relied-upon teachings could not be combined with those of Rang as the Examiner proposes for the foregoing reasons and those indicated by the Examiner. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-20 not argued separately with particularity. 7 Appeal2018-006910 Application 14/301,964 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under§ 103. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation