Ex Parte Wang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 8, 2010

10486262 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 8, 2010)

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.
10/486,262 03/04/2005 Jingtao Wang JP920010192US1 8172
57295 7590 11/08/2010
DILLON & YUDELL LLP
8911 N. CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY
SUITE 2110
AUSTIN, TX 78759
EXAMINER
RASHID, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JINGTAO WANG, HUI SU, ARIMASA NAITOH,
and ATSUSHI KUMAKI
_____________

Appeal 2009-007185
Application 10/486,262
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MAHSHID D. SAADAAT, and BRADLEY
W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, 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 2009-007185
Application 10/486,262

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 7, 11, 12, and 16 through 19.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of inputting handwriting into a
computer where two or more computers are used. See page 2 of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 7 is reproduced below:
7. A method for performing collaborative handwriting input in
an information processing system having a recognition computer and
an input hand-held computer, said method comprising:

capturing ink information handwritten by a user on said input
hand-held computer;

wirelessly transmitting said captured ink information from said
input hand-held computer to said recognition computer via a wireless
connection;
displaying on said input hand-held computer a plurality of
recognition result candidate characters received from said recognition
computer via said wireless connection, wherein said recognition result
candidate characters are similar to each other and are formulated
based on said captured ink information; and
wirelessly transmitting a subset of said recognition result
candidate characters selected by said user to said recognition
computer to be utilized by an application.

REFERENCES
Chiang US 6,154,758 Nov. 28, 2000
Schiller US 2002/0031243 A1 Mar. 14, 2002
Nakagawa US 6,616,703 B1 Sep. 9, 2003

2

Appeal 2009-007185
Application 10/486,262

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 11, and 16 though 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Nakagawa.
The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 4 through 9 of the Answer.2
The Examiner has rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chiang in view of Nakagawa. The Examiner’s rejection
is on pages 9 through 10 of the Answer.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that the combination of Chiang and Nakagawa does
not teach the step of capturing ink information handwritten by a user on the
hand held computer. Br. 7. Further, Appellants argue that the combination
of Chiang and Nakagawa does not teach displaying a plurality of recognition
result candidate characters which are similar to each other. Br. 7-8.3
Appellants’ contentions present us with two issues:4
a) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chiang and
Nakagawa teach the step of capturing ink information handwritten by a user?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chiang and
Nakagawa teach displaying a plurality of recognition result candidate
characters which are similar to each other?

2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer dated
November 7, 2008.
3 Appellants’ arguments address all of the claims included in the rejection as
a group. Accordingly, we select claim 7 as representative.

3

Appeal 2009-007185
Application 10/486,262

ANALYSIS
First issue
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Chiang and Nakagawa teach the claim 7
step of capturing ink information handwritten by a user. Appellants’
arguments focus on the description in column 3, lines 17-22 and step 202 of
Figure 6. App. Br .7, Rep. Br. 2-3. However, the Examiner relies upon a
different part of Chiang’s disclosure, item 80 in Figure 3, to show that
Chiang teaches the step of inputting information handwritten by the user.
Answer 12.5 Appellants, in the Reply Brief, do not dispute this finding by
the Examiner, but rather, argue that Chiang’s system is different than what is
claimed in Chiang as the characters are automatically converted to a
different set of characters before being wirelessly transmitted. Rep. Br. 2.
Appellants’ further argument that the information is not transmitted
wirelessly as claimed, is not persuasive. While we concur that the Examiner
has not shown that Chiang teaches this feature, the Examiner has found that
this feature is obvious when Chiang is combined with Nakagawa. Answer
5-6. Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s finding that in
combination the limitation is obvious.
Appellants’ further argument that the difference between Chiang and
Appellants’ device is akin to the difference between a multiple choice exam
and an essay exam (App. Brief 7) is also unpersuasive. As stated by the
Examiner, the claim does not bear out this distinction (Answer 14), and
Appellants’ assertion does not consider the handwriting input discussed
4

Appeal 2009-007185
Application 10/486,262

above. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that Chiang and Nakagawa teach the step of capturing
ink information handwritten by a user.

Second issue
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Chiang and Nakagawa teach displaying a
plurality of recognition result candidate characters which are similar to each
other as recited in claim 7. Appellants argue that it is unclear what the
Examiner is considering to be the recognition results which are similar to
each other as Chiang does not disclose recognition characters which are
similar to each other. App. Br. 7-8. The Examiner responds stating that the
list of recognition results is item 102 in Figure 3, and they are similar to each
other in that they are not random but based upon captured ink information.
Answer 15. We concur with the Examiner’s findings on pages 15 and 16 of
the Answer. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination the references teaches
displaying a plurality of recognition result candidate characters which are
similar to each other as recited in claim 7.

5 Other passages of Chiang also discusses inputting text as handwritten text
(see col. 2, lines 44-46, col. 6, ll. 4-6, col. 9, ll. 31-33).
5

Appeal 2009-007185
Application 10/486,262

CONCLUSION
Appellants’ arguments directed to the two issues presented in this
appeal have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims
7, 11, 12, and 16 though 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7, 11, 12, and 16 though 19
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).

6

Appeal 2009-007185
Application 10/486,262

AFFIRMED

ELD
DILLON & YUDELL LLP
8911 N. CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY
SUITE 2110
AUSTIN, TX 78759
7