Ex Parte Sung

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2017

12920008 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2017)

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.
12/920,008 11/22/2010 Kyong-hoon Sung P4025US00 9776
58027 7590 01/31/2017
H.C. PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
BARRETT, RYAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2017 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):
PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYONG-HOON SUNG
Appeal 2016-006736
Application 12/920,008
Technology Center 2100
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3—7. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to searching an item from a
plurality of items. Spec 1. Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method of searching for an item, comprising:
Appeal 2016-006736
Application 12/920,008
displaying a plurality of items that are selectable on a
screen;
searching for and designating an item from the plurality of
items by moving a cursor according to a key input, wherein the
cursor is continually accelerated as long as the key is pressed;
displaying additional information, related to the designated
item, on the screen, when the cursor speed is less than or equal to
a preset speed;
displaying, adjacent to the designated item, only brief
representative alphanumeric information related to where the
designated item is sequentially arranged in the plurality of items,
when the cursor speed exceeds the preset speed; and
terminating the cursor's movement by decelerating the
cursor at a controlled rate when the key is no longer pressed.
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Beverley et al. (US Publication 2009/0204920 Al,
published Aug. 13, 2009), Hollemans (US Publication 2010/0169822 Al,
published July 1, 2010), Bull et al. (US Publication 2009/0064031 Al,
published Mar. 5, 2009), and Utsuki et al. (US Publication 2006/0020970
Al, published Jan. 26, 2006); claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Beverley, Hollemans, Bull, Utsuki, and Platt et al. (US
Publication 2007/0074125 Al, published Mar. 29, 2007); claim 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Beverley, Hollemans, Bull, Utsuki, and
Haseyama et al. (US Publication 2008/0218486 Al, published Sept. 11,
2008); and claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
2
Appeal 2016-006736
Application 12/920,008
Beverley, Hollemans, Bull, Utsuki, and Tsuk et al. (US Publication
2003/0076301 Al, published Apr. 24, 2003).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 3—7?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites that the cursor is continually accelerated as long as the
key is pressed. The Examiner states that the combination of Beverley and
Hollemans teaches this feature. Final Act. 3 (citing Beverley 1211,
Hollemans 19). Appellant argues that neither Beverley nor Hollemans,
alone or in combination, discloses or suggests a cursor that is continually
accelerated as long as the key is pressed and that that “Hollemans . . .
teaches away from a continual acceleration in scrolling speed, as claimed.”
App. Br. 5—6. We agree with the Examiner.
For example, as the Examiner points out, Beverley teaches that “the
user can hold the button . . . down to accelerate the image ring” and that
Hollemans discloses that “as the user continues to scroll. . . the speed of
scrolling increases incrementally” and that the increase of the speed of
scrolling “may continue.” Final Act. 3 (citing Beverley 1211, Hollemans
19). Hence, the combination of Beverley and Hollemans demonstrates that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a user can “hold
[down a] button” to scroll a cursor and that “the speed of scrolling increases
3
Appeal 2016-006736
Application 12/920,008
incrementally” (i.e., “accelerates”) and that the increase in speed, or
“acceleration” “may continue” (i.e., may be performed “continually”).
Appellant does not explain persuasively a difference between the prior art
teaching of holding down a button to “continue” (i.e., “continually”) to
increase the speed of scrolling (i.e., accelerating the speed of scrolling) and
the disputed claim feature of continual acceleration. In both cases, the speed
of scrolling the cursor is increased (or “accelerated”) in a continual fashion.
Appellant argues that Hollemans discloses a “speed cue . . . given to
the user prior to the stepwise increase in scrolling speed as a warning” and
that “scrolling speed is not always desirable” and that Hollemans “teaches
away from a continual acceleration in scrolling speed, as claimed.” App.
Br. 6. Even assuming that Appellant is correct that Hollemans discloses a
“speed cue” and that “scrolling speed is not always desirable,” Appellant
does not demonstrate that Hollemans does not teach a cursor that is
continually accelerated, as recited in claim 1. As previously explained, we
agree with the Examiner that Hollemans, at least, teaches this feature. Also,
in view of the explicit disclosure in Holleman that an increase in speed (or
acceleration) of cursor speed “may continue,” we disagree that Hollemans
“teaches away” from continual acceleration in scrolling speed, as alleged by
Appellant.
Claim 1 recites displaying alphanumeric information when the cursor
speed exceeds a preset speed. The Examiner finds that Bull and Utsuki
teaches this feature. Ans. 4 (citing Bull Tflf 66, 67, Figs. 2B, 2C; Utsuki Fig.
4
Appeal 2016-006736
Application 12/920,008
20, 21, || 218, 220). Appellant argues that Bull fails to disclose or suggest
this feature. App. Br. 7. However, we agree with the Examiner.
For example, as the Examiner points out, Utsuki teaches that “if the
scrolling speed exceeds a predetermined scrolling speed,” changes in the
display screen are effected (Utsuki 218) and Bull discloses that when a user
“quick-scrolls” listings, “alphanumerical characters” may be displayed on a
display screen. Bull 66—67. We agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the known
process of displaying “alphanumerical characters” when “quick-scrolling”
listings on a display (Bull) with the known process of changing a display
when exceeding a predetermined scrolling speed (Utsuki) to achieve the
predictable result of changing a display by displaying alphanumeric
characters when exceeding a predetermined scrolling speed. “The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Appellant argues that “there is no disclosure in Bull of a speed
threshold” and that the display of Utsuki “is neither a letter nor a number.”
App. Br. 7—8. However, Appellant does not assert or demonstrate
sufficiently that the combination of Bull and Utsuki, as opposed to only one
of Bull or Utsuki in isolation, also fails to disclose or suggest a “speed
threshold” and a display that is either “a letter” or “a number.” One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
5
Appeal 2016-006736
Application 12/920,008
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant does not provide additional arguments in support of the
other claims under appeal or arguments with respect to any of Platt,
Haseyama, or Tsuk.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Beverley, Hollemans, Bull, and Utsuki; claim
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Beverley, Hollemans, Bull,
Utsuki, and Platt; claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Beverley, Hollemans, Bull, Utsuki, and Haseyama; and claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Beverley, Hollemans, Bull, Utsuki,
and Tsuk.
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
6