Ex Parte Wilairat

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13858914 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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.
13/858,914 04/08/2013 Weerapan Wilairat 326380-US-CNT 2265
69316 7590 03/01/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
SUTEERAWONGSA, JARURAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEERAPAN WILAIRAT
Appeal 2016-006126
Application 13/858,914
Technology Center 2600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-006126
Application 13/858,914
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to concurrently displaying multiple
characters for input field positions. “One or more suggested inputs can also
be displayed, and a user-selected one of the suggested inputs identified as an
input to the character input field.” Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method implemented in a computing device, the method
comprising:
receiving a single touch input comprising a selection of
two or more keys of a keyboard displayed on a display device,
each of the two or more keys corresponding to a single character,
the selection of the two or more keys including selection of at
least a portion of each of the two or more keys;
displaying a character corresponding to each of the two or
more keys in a character field list such that multiple characters
are included in the character field list;
displaying a character input field such that the character
field list and the character input field are concurrently displayed
on the display device of the computing device;
displaying one of the multiple characters in the character
field list as overlapping a portion of the character input field; and
increasing spacing between the multiple characters
displayed in the character list field relative to spacing between
the two or more keys of the keyboard to facilitate selection of a
character in the character list field relative to selection of the
character in the keyboard.
2
Appeal 2016-006126
Application 13/858,914
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kushler
Stephanick
Fux
Gloyd
Suraqui
US 2004/0140956
US 2005/0283358
US 2006/0007118
US 2007/0205993
US 7,508,324 B2
A1 July 22, 2004
A1 Dec. 22, 2005
A1 Jan. 12, 2006
A1 Sept. 6, 2007
Mar. 24, 2009
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claim 1—20 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-
type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1—20 of U.S. Patent
No. 8,416,192 B2 in view of Stephanick.
Claim 1—12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fux in view of Suraqui and further in view of Stephanick
and further in view of Kushler.
Claim 13—14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fux in view of Suraqui and further in view of Stephanick
and further in view of Kushler and further in view of Gloyd.
Claim 15—20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fux in view of Suraqui and further in view of Stephanick
and further in view of Gloyd.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the combination of Fux in view of
Suraqui, Stephanick, and Kushler teaches or suggests the limitations of
3
Appeal 2016-006126
Application 13/858,914
displaying one of the multiple characters in the character
field list as overlapping a portion of the character input field; and
increasing spacing between the multiple characters
displayed in the character list field relative to spacing between
the two or more keys of the keyboard to facilitate selection of a
character in the character list field relative to selection of the
character in the keyboard[,]
as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20
under double patenting. Thus, we summarily affirm this rejection.
Claims 1—20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues the combination of Fux, Suraqui, Stephanick, and
Kushler fails to teach increasing spacing between the multiple characters
displayed in the character list field relative to a corresponding character in
the keyboard of selectable characters as required in claims 1 and 11 (App.
Br. 13-16 and 21-22).
We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Stephanick teaches
displaying a character corresponding to each of the two or more keys in a
text entry field (1001) (Fig. 5 A) and displaying one of the characters
partially overlapping a first position of the text entry field (1001) (see Fig.
5A), Kushler teaches the spacing between keys in a text field (2300) being
larger than the spacing between two or more keys of the keyboard (Fig.
2C), and Suraqui provides the motivation for increasing space between two
adjacent keys, which is to minimize ambiguities (see Fig. 1; col. 7,11. 60-68;
col. 8,11. 1-3; col. 6,11. 21-22) (Ans. 2-3).
4
Appeal 2016-006126
Application 13/858,914
Appellant further argues Kushler does not teach an overlapping
character list field providing an extended selection area for each of the
multiple characters relative to the selection area of the multiple keys of the
keyboard (App. Br. 24—27).
We agree with the Examiners’ findings that Stephanick teaches
overlapping character list field (1004, 1001 in Fig. 5A) and Kushler teaches
providing an extended selection area for each of the multiple characters
relative to the selection area of the multiple keys of the keyboard (Fig. 2C)
(Ans. 4).
Appellant further argues with respect to claim 15 that Gloyd does not
teach
responsive to receiving the first user input, display a
character corresponding to each of the two or more keys selected
via the first user input in a first character list field adjacent a first
position of a character input field, each of the displayed
characters in the first character list field being selectable via a
surface area larger than a surface area of the corresponding key.
(App. Br. 29-31).
We agree with the Examiner that Gloyd teaches displayed characters
in the character list field (100) being selectable via a surface area larger (Fig.
4a) than a surface area of the corresponding key (10b) (Fig. 2); received
selection of one of the displayed characters in the first character list field via
the larger surface area; and non-selected characters from character list (100)
(Fig. 4a) disappeared after a character is selected (see Figs. 4a-4b and para.
45) (Ans. 5).
Appellant asserts that the motivations provided by the Examiner are
improper (App. Br. 16—21, 27—28, and 31).
5
Appeal 2016-006126
Application 13/858,914
We do not agree. The Examiner articulated reasonable rationales to
combine to improve text entry solution as suggested by Stephanick (para. 2),
to provide an improved touch input device as suggested by Kushler (para. 4),
and to improve visual experience to users as suggested by Gloyd (para. 36)
(Ans. 5).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and for
the same reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Fux, in
view of Suraqui, Stephanick, and Kushler, teaches or suggests the limitation
of
displaying one of the multiple characters in the character
field list as overlapping a portion of the character input field;
and
increasing spacing between the multiple characters
displayed in the character list field relative to spacing between
the two or more keys of the keyboard to facilitate selection of a
character in the character list field relative to selection of the
character in the keyboard[,]
as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are
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)(iv).
6
Appeal 2016-006126
Application 13/858,914
AFFIRMED
7