Ex Parte SRIVASTAVA et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201612511576 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/511,576 0712912009 66547 7590 02/26/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alok SRIVASTAVA 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. 678-3751 (Pl6939) 4077 EXAMINER MA, CALVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2693 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2016 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 Exparte ALOK SRIVASTAVA, AMITABH RANJAN, ANAND PRAKASH YADA V, JAYANTH KUMAR JAYA KUMAR, MALUR NAGENDRA SRIVATSA BHARADWAJ, SUSHANTH BANGALORE RAMESH, TARUN PANGTI, and V AIBHA V NEGI Appeal2014-004560 Application 12/511,576 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-30, which constitute all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-004560 Application 12/511,576 INVENTION Appellants' disclosed invention relates to a method and system for emphasizing objects in an electronic device. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1, which is representative, reads as follows: 1. A method for emphasizing characters in an electronic device, the method comprising: receiving an input character from a user of the electronic device; predicting one or more characters based on the input character; calculating a distance of each predicted character from a last input character; calculating an emphasizing priority of each predicted character based on multiplication or division of a priority of each predicted character and the distance of each predicted character from the last input character; and differently emphasizing the predicted characters based on the emphasizing priority of the predicted characters. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Takagi us 5,696,844 Dec. 9, 1997 Katsandres (et al.) us 6,119,941 Sept. 19, 2000 Griffin US 2008/0158020 Al July 3, 2008 Kay (et al.) US 2008/0189605 Al Aug. 7, 2008 2 Appeal2014-004560 Application 12/511,576 REJECTIONS APPEALED Claims 1--4 and 8-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Griffin, Kay, and Takagi. (Final Act. 2.) Claims 5-7 stand rejected over Griffin, Kay, Takagi, and Katsandres. (Final Act. 12.) ISSUE Appellants argue that Griffin, Kay, and Takagi fail to teach or suggest "calculating an emphasizing priority of each predicted character based on multiplication or division of a priority of each predicted character and the distance of each predicted character from the last input character," as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 3---6.) ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Kay and Takagi suggests the limitation-at-issue in claim 1. (Ans. 14--18.) In particular, the Examiner finds: Kay teaches or suggests calculating an emphasizing priority based on the priority of each predicted character and the distance of each predicted character from the last input character (Ans. 3, citing Kay, Figs. 4--5, i-fi-1 49- 51 ); and although Kay does not explicitly teach using multiplication or division to calculate that emphasizing priority (Ans. 4), the combination of Kay and Takagi suggests using multiplication or division to calculate the emphasizing priority (Ans. 14--18). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Kay discloses using multiplication or division to generate a word priority list, which predicts words for correction purposes based on input characters (Ans. 14--16), and Takagi discloses multiplication or division for character 3 Appeal2014-004560 Application 12/511,576 recognition (Ans. 16). The Examiner, thus, finds these teaching collectively suggest the limitation-at-issue. (Ans. 14--18.) Appellants argue that the Examiner erred. (App. Br. 3---6.) Appellants contend the passages cited by the Examiner in Kay do not teach or suggest multiplying or dividing a priority of each predicted character. (Reply Br. 4-- 5.) Appellants also contend the passages cited by the Examiner in Takagi do not teach or suggest such multiplication or division. (App. Br. 3-6.) These arguments by Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because they are directed to what individual references or passages within a reference would suggest, rather than what the combined references would suggest, to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981)). Here, Kay teaches an emphasizing priority based on both priority of a predicted character and distance from a previous character, but Kay is silent on how to combine both factors. (Ans. 3, citing Kay, Figs. 4--5, i-fi-149-51.) Kay and Takagi both teach the use of multiplication or division for predicting or processing characters. (Ans. 14-- 18, citing, e.g., Kay i183, formula 2, Takagi Fig. 13.) We agree with the Examiner that, collectively, the combination of these teachings teaches, or at least suggests, the limitation-at-issue. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2--4 and 8-30, not separately argued. Appellants present no separate arguments for claims 5-7. (App. Br. 7.) Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of those claims. 4 Appeal2014-004560 Application 12/511,576 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation