Ex Parte Scott

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 2011

10946385 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SHERRYL LEE LORRAINE SCOTT
____________________

Appeal 2009-010095
Application 10/946,385
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ALLEN R. MACDONALD and MARC S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-010095
Application 10/946,385

STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim(s)
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A mobile wireless communications device comprising:
a portable, handheld housing;
a display carried by said portable, handheld housing;
a keypad carried by said portable, handheld housing and comprising a
plurality of symbol keys each having indicia of at least one respective
symbol thereon, and an alternate function key;
a user input device carried by said portable, handheld housing; and
a controller carried by said portable, handheld housing and connected
to said display and said keypad for
generating a menu including a plurality of possible desired words
based upon actuation of said symbol keys and displaying the menu on said
display,
generating and displaying a word cursor on said display in the menu
for scrolling from word-to-word through the possible desired words based
upon said user input device, and
changing the word cursor to a symbol cursor based upon actuation of
said alternate function key for scrolling from symbol-to-symbol in at least
one of the possible desired words based upon said user input device.

Rejections on Appeal 2
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-27, and
29-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination
of Roth (US 2005/0159957), and King (US 6,286,064).

2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 4, 7, 11, 16, 19, and 28.
2
Appeal 2009-010095
Application 10/946,385

The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Roth, King, and Nurmi (US
2004/0246228).
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Roth, King, and Will (US
5,825,353).
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 16, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Roth, King, and Phillips (US
5,047,959).
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3,
5-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-27, and 29-32 because the references alone or in
combination fail to teach or suggest numerous claim limitations. (App. Br.
8-13).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-18,
20-27, and 29-32 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or
suggest the claim limitations at issue?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
3
Appeal 2009-010095
Application 10/946,385

the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-32 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-32 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-32 are 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)(iv)(2010).

4
Appeal 2009-010095
Application 10/946,385

AFFIRMED

ELD

RIM/FINNEGAN
901 NEW YORK AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
5