11867461 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

Ex Parte Wang

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 2014

11867461 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

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. 11/867,461 10/04/2007 Wei WANG 1235-297 9077 66547 7590 06/30/2014 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER BALSECA, FRANKLIN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2014 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 WEI WANG ____________ Appeal 2012-012514 Application 11/867,461 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-012514 Application 11/867,461 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an apparatus and method of inputting characters for reducing the number of times an input mode is changed while inputting various kinds of characters (Spec. 1:15-17). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus for inputting characters in a portable terminal, the apparatus comprising: an input unit for sensing key input, including character keys for inputting characters and numbers and a position fixation symbol key for sensing the input of position fixation symbols; a display unit for outputting the input characters and position fixation symbols; a symbol converter for converting the position fixation symbols into characters to output them to the display unit; and a character processing unit for, after a sequence including at least one character selected from a predetermined first kind of character and a plurality of position fixation symbols is input, selecting a first position fixation symbol from among the plurality of position fixation symbols, and upon receiving user input of a replacement character, controlling the symbol converter to convert the selected position fixation symbol in the sequence into the input replacement character. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Haestrup (US 6,223,059 B1, Apr. 24, 2001) in view of Tso (US 6,157,323, Dec. 5, 2000). Appeal 2012-012514 Application 11/867,461 3 ANALYSIS Appellant contends the Examiner is incorrect in finding Tso automatically changes position symbols. Rather, Tso discloses a “punctuation symbol that replaces a placeholder is not received through user input at all, but is instead determined internally according to linguistic rules” (App. Br. 5). Further, Appellant contends, Tso does not disclose the placeholder (position fixation symbol) is replaced by a character determined through user input (App. Br. 7). Lastly, Appellant asserts the claim provides “direct user control and greater freedom in replacement over the cited reference” (App. Br. 8). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans. 5- 7 and 19-21). We note the claims do not recite a “manual” user input, just a “user” input. A “user” is not defined in Appellant’s Specification. Thus, the user can be considered a human or a program implemented by a human. Therefore, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, the claim language “user input of a replacement character” includes Tso’s teaching of automatic replacement (user choses a key that inserts a placeholder and a processor uses rules to replace the placeholder with an appropriate symbol (Tso, col. 9, ll. 49-58)). Further, we note Appellant admits Tso discloses a user must manually return to a punctuation system if the punctuation placeholder is not the user’s intended punctuation symbol (Reply Br. 4). Thus, even if Tso discloses a punctuation placeholder is automatically selected, Tso also suggests the placeholder can be manually selected. Finally, we note Appellant states a “user is able to directly input a user’s intended punctuation symbols” (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added); App. Br. 8). Appeal 2012-012514 Application 11/867,461 4 However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with Appellant’s claim language. Thus, for the above reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Haestrup and Tso teach or suggest Appellant’s claims 1, 12, and 14, all argued with substantially the same reasoning (see App. Br. 4-8, 14-16, and 18-19). With respect to claim 3, Appellant argues claim 3 provides increased flexibility to a user because it chooses the replacement characters and also selects the position fixation symbols to be replaced. This selection is performed directly among the various position fixation symbols so a user does not have to navigate among any intervening characters between the position fixation symbols in order to select a next or previous position fixation symbol, providing a more efficient user interface. In contrast, Appellant contends, Tso only discloses inputting a single placeholder before replacement, and therefore does not teach or suggest selecting from among a plurality of placeholders as claimed (Reply Br. 6). Further, Appellant asserts, since Tso automatically replaces without user input, Tso “does not provide any motivation or suggestion to provide a user option to move back and forth amongst placeholder symbols, as opposed to conventional navigation through text, before replacement is performed” (id.). Again, Appellant is arguing limitations not commensurate in scope with claim 3. There is no recitation of directly selecting among a plurality of position fixation symbols. Claim 3 is broadly written, and thus, discloses input of a single placeholder, be it a previous position or a next position. The placeholders in Appellant’s claimed invention can only be inserted one at a time. Appeal 2012-012514 Application 11/867,461 5 With respect to claim 7, Appellant argues Tso teaches away from the claimed limitations (Reply Br. 7). However, Appellant has not provided evidence of teaching away. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed” (citation omitted)). Thus, in light of the above, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s reading of claims 3 and 7 on the cited combination of references is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 12-15 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc