Ex Parte Wei et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

13826487 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
13/826,487 03/14/2013 Konggang Wei 13674-1208
(83213936US05)
3083
93823 7590
BGL/Huawei
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
ADESANYA, OLUJIMI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2017 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 KONGGANG WEI, GUANGHUA ZHONG,
GANG ZHANG, and HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.
Appeal 2017-006208
Application 13/826,487
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-006208
Application 13/826,487
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ application relates to associating text input to a terminal
with a predicted next text for a user to select in order to increase input
efficiency. Spec. 115. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An input method for completing a missing text or a phrase
on a display of a device terminal, comprising:
receiving an input of a plurality of words as a first phrase
or a first sentence through key entries for displaying on the
device terminal;
receiving an input of a first punctuation, wherein the first
punctuation follows after the first phrase or the first sentence;
receiving an input of a plurality of words as a second
phrase or a second sentence through key entries for displaying on
the device terminal, wherein the second phrase or the second
sentence follows after the first punctuation;
detecting a first location of a cursor on the display of the
device terminal, wherein the first location of the cursor is
positioned after an end of the second phrase or the second
sentence;
identifying by the device terminal, one or more words
within only the second phrase or the second sentence which is
located between the first punctuation and the first location of the
cursor;
2
Appeal 2017-006208
Application 13/826,487
using the identified one or more words within only the
second phrase or the second sentence as a first previous text or a
first previous phrase, querying for a first next text or a first next
phrase from a word library in a memory of the device terminal,
wherein the first next text or the first next phrase is associated in
context with the first previous text or the first previous phrase;
outputting on the display of the device terminal, the
associated first next text or first next phrase which appends after
the end of the second phrase or the second sentence;
detecting a second location of the cursor on the display of
the device terminal after the associated first next text or first next
phrase is outputted, wherein the second location of the cursor is
positioned before the first location of the cursor, and wherein the
second location of the cursor is positioned after the first
punctuation;
identifying by the device terminal, one or more words
within only a third phrase or a third sentence which is located
between the first punctuation and the second location of the
cursor;
using the identified one or more words within only the
third phrase or the third sentence as a second previous text or a
second previous phrase, querying for a second next text or a
second next phrase from the word library in the memory of the
device terminal, wherein the second next text or the second next
phrase is associated in context with the second previous text or
the second previous phrase; and
outputting on the display of the device terminal, the
associated second next text or second next phrase which appends
after the end of the third phrase or the third sentence.
3
Appeal 2017-006208
Application 13/826,487
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Poon US 2011/0093497 A1 Apr. 21,2011
Kay US 2005/0017954 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kay.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kay and Poon.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
The Examiner finds Kay discloses all the limitations of independent
claim 1, including “detecting a second location of the cursor on the display
of the device terminal after the associated first next text or first next phrase
is outputted.” Final Act. 7—11. Appellants contend Kay fails to disclose the
feature of detecting a second location of the cursor. App. Br. 13—16. We
agree with Appellants.
Kay describes an example where a user enters the text “Let’s run to
school. Better yet, let’s drive to” and then enters a space, at which point
Kay’s system predicts the word “school.” Kay, 140. The Examiner finds
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans.
41.
4
Appeal 2017-006208
Application 13/826,487
the user’s entering a space in Kay’s example implies the cursor position is
after the entered text. See Final Act. 8—9. The Examiner relies on this same
example in Kay for disclosing the limitation “detecting a second location of
the cursor” as for disclosing the limitation “detecting a first location of a
cursor.” See Final Act. 8—10. However, we disagree with the Examiner
because claim 1 requires the second cursor location be “before the first
location of the cursor,” i.e., at a different location than the first cursor
location. In other words, the same text input example in Kay cannot be
relied upon for disclosing two different relative cursor positions in two
different limitations.
Although the Examiner also finds Kay discloses “‘[cjursoring around
the buffer,’ [which] means pressing either the left arrow or the right arrow,
and ending with the cursor to the right of a word” (Final Act. 10; Kay,
1309), it is unclear how this shows a second cursor location that is different
from a first cursor location, and that is used for identifying a second
previous text for querying a word library for a second next text, as recited in
claim 1. Rather, Kay describes “no prediction is delivered after cursoring
around the buffer to the right of a word and hitting key space.” Kay, 1311.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds the second portion of claim 1, i.e.,
the “detecting a second location of the cursor . . .,” is a mere repetition of the
first portion of claim 1 that includes “detecting a first location of a cursor . . .
.” Ans. 42-43. We disagree with the Examiner. Claim 1 recites “the
second phrase or the second sentence follows after the first punctuation” and
“the first location of the cursor is positioned after an end of the second
phrase or the second sentence,” and then recites “the second location of the
cursor is positioned before the first location of the cursor, and wherein the
second location of the cursor is positioned after the first punctuation.” Thus,
5
Appeal 2017-006208
Application 13/826,487
claim 1 does not simply recite two iterations of predicting a next text by
entering a phrase framed by prior punctuation and a subsequent cursor
position. Rather, in claim 1 the second location of the cursor is dependent
on the first location of the cursor and provides a refinement of the first
previous phrase used to predict the first next text.2 The Examiner has not
shown Kay discloses this feature.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and independent claims 4 and 7
which recite commensurate limitations. Independent claim 16 recites “the
second location of the cursor being to the left of the end of the first
prediction text and to the right of the comma,” which is similar to the second
location of the cursor recited in independent claim 1 in that it depends on
prior steps in the claim. As discussed above, the Examiner has not shown
Kay discloses such a second location of a cursor, specifically regarding
claim 16, where the second location of the cursor depends on the position of
a first prediction text. Thus, we are also constrained by the record to find the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 16, and dependent claims 17
and 18.
The Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner has not shown that the addition of the Poon reference
cures the deficiencies of Kay discussed above with respect to independent
2 Upon further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to reconsider the
withdrawal of the § 112(a) rejection, given the Examiner’s incorrect
interpretation of claim 1. That is, the Examiner may reconsider whether
there is adequate written description support for the second portion of claim
1—“detecting a second location of the cursor . . .”—which, as discussed
here, we find is not a mere reiteration of the first portion of claim 1.
6
Appeal 2017-006208
Application 13/826,487
claims 1, 4, and 7, from which claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8—15 depend. See Final
Act. 23 46. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8—15.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,4,
7, and 16—18.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3,
5, 6, and 8—15.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1—18.
REVERSED
7