Ex Parte Wisniewski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

14191688 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/191,688 02/27/2014
117396 7590 07/31/2018
FG1L/Burgess Law Office, PLLC
P.O. Box 214320
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4320
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dean Thomas Wisniewski
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
83389044 9181
EXAMINER
YANG,QIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 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 DEAN THOMAS WISNIEWSKI, IVETTE HERNANDEZ,
RICHARD ENGLERT, and JASON BERNARD JOHNSON
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CARLL.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 7-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is an in-car communication and entertainment
system with an international keyboard that enables users to interface and
communicate with the system in different languages and dialects. To this
end, a user interface screen includes keys that enable the user to not only
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies,
LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
select a language or dialect in which to enter text, but also access pages of
additional text, characters, or symbols that cannot be shown on the screen
due to space limitations. See generally Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 2, 24--30. Claim 7
is illustrative:
7. An in-car communication and entertainment system,
compnsmg:
a touch screen display;
a keyboard displayed on the touch screen display, wherein the
keyboard displays a first character set constituting a portion of a first
language or dialect; and
a key associated with the keyboard;
wherein the key includes indicia indicating a presence of at least one
additional character set constituting additional non-numeric characters of
the first language or dialect for display with the keyboard.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 10-14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Park (US 2012/0313858 Al; Dec. 13, 2012) and
Wingrove (US 2011/0136454 Al; June 9, 2011). Ans. 2-8. 2
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 15, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Park, Wingrove, and Cranfill (US 2013/0332886 Al;
Dec. 12, 2013). Ans. 8-11.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to ( 1) the Appeal Brief filed August 17,
2017 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed September 29, 2017
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed November 29, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PARK AND WINGROVE
Regarding independent claim 7, the Examiner finds that Park
discloses, among other things, a keyboard 322 on a touch screen display,
where an associated symbol or function key indicates presence of at least
one additional character set constituting additional non-numeric characters,
namely special symbols including"', !, @, #, $, %, &, and*" of a first
language, namely English. Ans. 2-3, 12-14. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Park's system is not an in-car communication and
entertainment system, the Examiner cites Wingrove as teaching this feature
in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that Park's symbol and function keys indicate
presence of additional languages, namely symbols and functions
respectively-not additional non-numeric characters of the first language as
claimed. App. Br. 6-13; Reply Br. 1-3. Appellants argue other recited
limitations summarized below.
ISSUES
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Park and
Wingrove collectively would have taught or suggested:
( 1) a key indicating presence of at least one additional character set
constituting additional non-numeric characters of a first language as recited
in claim 7?
(2) the limitations recited in claims 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 19?
3
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
ANALYSIS
Claim 7
As noted above, a key aspect of the claimed invention is that a key
associated with a displayed keyboard indicates presence of at least one
additional character set constituting additional non-numeric characters of a
first language or dialect.
Turning to the rejection, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on
Park's symbol selection key 322c that is associated with second keyboard
320 in Figure 3A for at least suggesting the recited additional character set
presence indication. Park's paragraph 45 describes an embodiment where, if
the user selects English selection key 322b, the second keyboard's language
becomes English. Moreover, if the user touches symbol selection key 322c,
a keyboard for inputting special symbols such as"',!,@,#,$,%,&, and*"
is provided as the second keyboard. Park ,r 45.
Given this functionality, Park's paragraph 45 at least suggests a
scenario where a user first selects English selection key 3 22b to enter
English language text, and then selects symbol selection key 322c to display
special symbols including"', !, @, #, $, %, &, and*" to select and,
therefore, include in the previously-entered text. In this scenario, the
displayed symbols are at least associated with the English language, and,
therefore, are additional non-numeric characters of a first language, namely
English, particularly given their common usage in English language text. 3
3 These symbols are even used in legal writing. See e.g., THE BLUEBOOK: A
UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds.
20th ed. 2015) R. 6.2(d) (noting that dollar($) and percent(%) symbols
should be used whenever numerals are used); R. 10.2.l(c) (including"&" as
an accepted abbreviation in textual sentences); R. 15. 8(b) ( describing star
4
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
See e.g., THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
1752 ( 4th ed. 2006) (listing commonly-used symbols and their designations
including "at" (@), "number" ( #), "percent" (% ), "ampersand" ( & ), and
"asterisk" (*) ). That the very title of this dictionary listing these symbols
identifies the dictionary as "of the English Language" is telling in this
regard.
To be sure, Park's paragraph 45 notes that after selecting English
selection key 322b and symbol selection key 322c, the second keyboard's
language becomes English and "symbols," respectively, as Appellants
indicate. See App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2-3; see also Park ,r 25
( characterizing numerals, symbols, and functions with respect to a keyboard
interface as a language of a corresponding key interface). But despite Park's
nomenclature characterizing displayed symbols as a "language," they are
nonetheless also additional non-numeric characters of the English language.
Appellants' arguments are therefore unavailing and not commensurate with
the scope of the claim.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7.
Claim 8
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 reciting, in
pertinent part, that the first character set is selected from a group consisting
of various languages, including Greek, Traditional or Simplified Chinese,
Japanese, and/or Korean. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary
page citations using the asterisk symbol(*)); R. 18.2.2(a) (listing social
media citation examples using the "at" symbol(@)).
5
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
(App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 3--4), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner's reliance on Park's paragraph 45 for at least suggesting that the
special symbols including"', !, @, #, $, %, &, and*" are not limited only to
English, but can also be of various other languages, including Greek,
Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, particularly given Park's references to these
languages in paragraphs 25 and 33. See Ans. 17.
Nor do we see any reason why these symbols could not be added to
previously-entered text in the recited languages if such languages were first
selected in a manner similar to the scenario noted previously where symbols
are added to previously-entered English language text. In that sense, then,
these symbols would be of the particular language for the text to which the
symbols are added. Despite Park's nomenclature characterizing displayed
symbols as a "language," they are nonetheless also additional non-numeric
characters of a particular selected language, including foreign languages, at
least to the extent that they are at least associated with adding symbols to
previously-entered foreign language text in a manner similar to the English-
language scenario described in connection with claim 7. Given Park's
functionality involving foreign languages in addition to English, such a
scenario involving adding symbols to previously-entered foreign language
text, including text from the languages recited in claim 8, would have been
at least an obvious variation. Appellants' arguments are therefore unavailing
and not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 8.
6
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
Claims 10-12
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 reciting, in
pertinent part, actuating a second key element associated with the keyboard
causes the touch screen display to display a list of at least one other language
or dialect, where a user is selectively operable4 to select a second language
or dialect from the list to cause the keyboard to display plural characters
corresponding to a second language or dialect. Final Act. 4--5.
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 15-16), we
see no error in the Examiner's reliance on the functionality of Park's Figure
4 for at least suggesting that actuating any of language selection keys 422-
the "group key" in the Examiner's parlance (Ans. 18}-causes the touch
screen to display a list of at least one other language as the Examiner
indicates. Ans. 18. As shown in Park's Figure 4, after the user selects the
Greek language selection key 422b, not only is a Greek language keyboard
displayed, but also a list of three other selectable languages, namely
Chinese, Russian, and French, via their respective selection keys 422a, 422c,
and 422d. See Park ,r 48. That these three latter selection keys are not
shaded in the partial detail view of Park's Figure 4 reproduced below-
unlike the Greek selection key 422b----only further suggests that this list of
other selectable languages is displayed upon selecting the Greek selection
key given this visual distinction.
4 Despite claim lO's inartful recitation that a user is selectively operable to
select a second language or dialect from a displayed list, we nonetheless
construe this limitation as directed to the user's ability to select a second
language or dialect from the list.
7
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
Partial detail view of Park's Figure 4 showing language selection keys
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 10, and claims 11 and 12 not argued separately with particularity.
Claim 13
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 reciting, in
pertinent part, when the second language or dialect is selected, the key
indicates a presence of at least one additional character set constituting
additional non-numeric characters of the selected second language. Our
emphasis on the term "when" underscores a conditional limitation that, in a
recited method, need not be satisfied to meet such a claim. See Ex parte
Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016)
(precedential); see also MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
8
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
(MPEP) § 2111.04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing
Schulhauser). 5
But where, as here, the claim recites an apparatus whose structure
performs a function that need only occur if a condition precedent is met, the
claim still requires structure for performing the function should the condition
occur. See Schulhauser at 14--15. Therefore, claim 13 's structure, namely
the system's key-based presence indication function, is present in the system
regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually
performed.
Turning to the rejection, and despite Appellants' arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 16), we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's
reliance on Park for at least suggesting the recited key-based presence
indication function for the reasons noted above and by the Examiner. Ans.
6, 19 ( citing Park ,r 45). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 13.
Claim 14
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 reciting, in
pertinent part, selecting the character set from a group consisting of various
languages and their combinations. Despite Appellants' arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 17), we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's
5 Although the limitations at issue in Schulhauser were rendered conditional
by reciting the term "if," we discern no meaningful distinction between the
recitation of "if' and "when" in this context. One dictionary definition of
"when" is "in the event that: on condition that: IF." MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S
THIRD NEW lNT'L DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 2602
((unabridged) 2002).
9
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
reliance on Park for at least suggesting the recited limitations for the reasons
noted above and by the Examiner. Ans. 6, 19--20 ( citing Park ,r,r 25, 33, 45).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
14.
Claims 16-18
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 reciting, in
pertinent part, (1) a first touch-sensitive key, where touching the first key
causes the touch screen display to display a list of at least one language or
dialect other than the first language or dialect, and (2) a second key
including indicia indicating presence of at least one additional second
language character set constituting additional non-numeric characters of the
second language or dialect.
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 17-19; Reply
Br. 4), we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Park's Figure 4 for at
least suggesting the recited first key. As noted previously, actuating any of
language selection keys 422-the "group key" in the Examiner's parlance
(Ans. 21 }-----causes the touch screen to display a list of languages, namely
Chinese, Russian, and French, other than a first language, namely Greek.
Ans. 6-7, 21. Our previous discussion of Park's list-based functionality in
connection with claim 10 applies equally here, and we are unpersuaded of
error in the Examiner's reliance on that functionality here for the reasons
previously discussed.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the
functionality of Park's symbol key 322c in Figure 3A for at least suggesting
the recited second key including indicia indicating presence of at least one
10
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
additional second language character set constituting additional non-numeric
characters of the second language for the reasons noted previously and by
the Examiner. Ans. 7, 21-24.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 16, and claims 17 and 18 not argued separately with particularity.
Claim 19
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19 reciting, in
pertinent part, selecting the character set from a group consisting of various
languages and their combinations. Despite Appellants' arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 20-21), we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's
reliance on Park for at least suggesting the recited limitations for the reasons
noted above and by the Examiner. Ans. 8, 24--25. Therefore, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19.
THE REJECTION OVER PARK, WINGROVE, AND CRANFILL
Claims 9, 15, and 20
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 reciting that the
key includes indicia corresponding to the number of pages of additional non-
numeric character sets. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App.
Br. 21-22), we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Cranfill's page
indicator dots 802 in Figure 8A to show that displaying touch-screen-based
indicia that corresponds to a number of associated pages is known in the art,
and that providing such indicia in connection with Park's touch-screen based
keys to indicate graphically which page was being viewed would have
yielded a predictable result and, therefore, would have been obvious. See
11
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
Ans. 8-9, 25-27; see also Cranfill ,r 114 (describing page indicator dot
functionality).
We find unavailing Appellants' contention that the Examiner's
combination is improper because the Examiner merely summarily asserts
that Cranfill's page indicator dots could be used in Park without showing
how these dots perform a function in Park. See App. Br. 22. It is well
settled that "a determination of obviousness based on teachings from
multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of
elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations
omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a secondary reference's
features can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. And here, the Examiner's proposed
combination predictably uses prior art elements according to their
established functions to yield a predictable result, namely informing the user
graphically which of plural pages of character sets associated with a
particular key is currently viewed. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
To the extent that Appellants contend that Cranfill's touch-screen
based page indicator dots are somehow inapplicable to, or incompatible
with, Park's displayed keys, we disagree, particularly given the touch-
screen-based displays in both references. Compare Park ,r 30 with Cranfill
,r,r 45--47. Nor is there any persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate
such an incompatibility.
12
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
And to the extent that Appellants contend that Park's keys cannot
represent multi-page character sets, there is no persuasive evidence on this
record to support such a contention. Nor is there any evidence on this record
proving that indicating graphically respective pages of such multi-page
character sets in Park in a manner suggested by Cranfill would have been
uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled
artisans. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F .3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In short, using indicators on a key displayed on touch
screen to inform a user graphically of the number of associated pages of
displayed content as the Examiner proposes would have been at least an
obvious variation given the cited references' collective teachings.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 9. For similar reasons, and despite Appellants arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 23-24), we likewise sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 15 and 20 that recite commensurate limitations. See Ans.
9, 27-30.
Claims 21 and 22
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 reciting a jewel
element located on the second key for each additional page of second
language character sets constituting additional non-numeric characters of the
second language or dialect. In Appellants' Figure 1, two jewel elements 18,
20 are located on "ABC" key 14 indicating that there are two pages of
additional text, characters, symbols, etc. that are available to the user. Spec.
,r 26. The second jewel element 20 is highlighted in Appellants' Figure 2
indicating that the user is viewing the second page. Spec. ,r 27.
13
Appeal2018-001643
Application 14/191,688
Given the commensurate page-indication functionality of Cranfill' s
page indicator dots 802 in Figure 8A and paragraph 114, namely to indicate
graphically which of multiple pages are being viewed, we see no error in the
Examiner's reliance on this functionality in combination with the
Park/Wingrove system for at least suggesting the recited limitations for the
reasons noted above and by the Examiner. See Ans. 10-11, 30-32.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21, and claim 22 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7-22 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 7-22.
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
14