Ex Parte Rhee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201612831369 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016) 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. 12/831,369 07/07/2010 Do-Young Rhee 678-3976 (P17638) 2303 66547 7590 01/03/2017 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER BLANCHA, JONATHAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2017 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): pto @ farrelliplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DO-YOUNG RHEE, JEONG-SEOK LEE, and SEONG-MIN SEO Appeal 2015-003069 Application 12/831,369 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-003069 Application 12/831,369 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claimed invention is directed to a pen-type input device for sending positional input to a host device, in which a first switch, located on the pen's tip is provided to input character strokes in a character input mode and move a mouse cursor in a mouse mode, a second switch is provided to perform a mouse left-click operation in the mouse mode, and a third switch is provided to switch an input mode of the pen-type input device. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A pen-type input device for performing input to a host device, comprising: a first switch located on an end of a pen tip, configured to click input a character stroke in a character input mode and move a mouse cursor in a mouse mode; a second switch configured to perform a mouse left-click operation in the mouse mode; and a third switch configured to switch an input mode of the pen-type input device. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: THE INVENTION REFERENCES Persidsky US 6,130,666 Oct. 10,2000 US 2006/0250357 A1 Nov. 9, 2006 US 2006/0250380 A1 Nov. 9, 2006 US 2008/0166049 A1 July 10, 2008 US 2008/0225007 A1 Sept. 18, 2008 Safai Oliver Wang Nakadaira 2 Appeal 2015-003069 Application 12/831,369 Love Mu Miller US 2008/0238887 A1 Oct. 2, 2008 US 2008/0259033 A1 Oct. 23, 2008 US 2009/0113091 A1 Apr. 30, 2009 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Persidsky, Nakadaira, and Miller. Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oliver in view of Persidsky, Love, Nakadaira, and Miller. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mu, Persidsky, Nakadaira, and Miller and further in view of Oliver. Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oliver, Persidsky, Love, Nakadaira, and Miller and further in view of Mu. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oliver, Persidsky, Love, Nakadaira, and Miller, and further in view of Safai. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oliver, Persidsky, Love, Nakadaira, and Miller and further in view of Wang. The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Mu in view of Persidsky, Nakadaira, and Miller teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of “a first switch located on an end of a pen ISSUE 3 Appeal 2015-003069 Application 12/831,369 tip, configured to click input” and “a third switch configured to switch an input mode of the pen-type input device,” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Action. We add the following for emphasis. Appellants assert that Miller teaches that the push button 204 of a stylus is pressed sufficiently to close the push switch 338, so the user may select an icon or brush stroke (App. Br. 7). Appellants argue that Miller teaches the conventional pen-type input device, in which the character input function and the mouse function are not separated in contrast to the present invention where the two functions are separated (Id. ). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. “[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relied on Mu, not Miller for the teaching of switching a stylus/mouse function input mode of a pen-type input device with switch 206 (Ans. 13; Final Act. 3; Mu para. 30; Fig. 2). The Examiner relied on Miller solely for teaching a first switch located on an end of a pen tip operable with a click input (Ans. 12—13; Miller para. 37; referring to “actuated”). Accordingly, the combination teaches the disputed limitations of “a first switch located on an end of a pen tip, configured to click input” and “a third switch configured to switch an input mode of the pen-type input device,” as recited in claim 1. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2—9 wherein Appellants refer to the same arguments as those raised above (App. Br. 8—11). 4 Appeal 2015-003069 Application 12/831,369 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Mu in view of Persidsky, Nakadaira, and Miller teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of “a first switch located on an end of a pen tip, configured to click input” and “a third switch configured to switch an input mode of the pen-type input device,” as recited in claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation