Ex Parte YamanoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 20, 201613268270 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/268,270 10/07/2011 60803 7590 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 620 Herndon Parkway Suite 320 Herndon, VA 20170 05/20/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ikuo YAMANO 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. 1946-0475 2906 EXAMINER MATHEWS, CRYSTAL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2623 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2016 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 IKUO Y AMANO Appeal2014-008115 Application 13/268,270 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-21. Claim 8 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under 3 5 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-008115 Application 13/268,270 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for modifying an input area, the apparatus compnsmg: a memory; and a processor executing instructions stored in the memory to: display a first input area on a device; detect a user input in a second input area of a touch screen, wherein the second input area comprises a plurality of objects being displayed thereon; perform, when the user input comprises a first operation of a one-point tap operation selecting one of the displayed objects of the second input area, an input function corresponding to the selected object; and modify, when the user input comprises a second operation of an at-least-two point operation made upon at least one of the displayed objects of the second input area, the first input area, wherein the second operation of the at-least-two point operation does not select any of the displayed objects of the second input area. APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1---6 and 9-- 21under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Komev (US 2010/0333011 Al; Dec. 30, 2010) and claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view ofKomev and Fleizach (US 2010/0309147 Al; Dec. 9, 2010), for numerous reasons, including primarily that Komev fails to teach or suggest (i) displaying a first input area on a device; and/or (ii) modifying the first input area without selecting any displayed objects of the second input area as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 13-17). 2 Appeal2014-008115 Application 13/268,270 ANALYSIS Appellant contends Komev fails to disclose "display a first input area on a device; ... and modify, when the user input comprises a second operation of an at-least-two point operation made upon at least one of the displayed objects of the second input area, the first input area," and "wherein the second operation of the at-least-two point operation does not select any of the displayed objects of the second input area" as required by claim 1. App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Komev discloses each limitation of claim 1 in Figure 2A and related descriptions. See Ans. 2-8. Figure 2A, reproduced below, depicts a touch screen display having a key region, a "character menu" spaced separately above the key region, and an "output window" above the character menu near the top of the display. Like the keys of a traditional touch-tone telephone, Komev depicts the key region as 12 different keys spaced along three columns and four rows, with 10 of the keys having a number from 0 through 9, one key having an asterisk, and one key having a number sign. Among other things, the letters of the alphabet are spread consecutively among the keys numbered 2 through 9. Komev states that the numbers depicted in the center of the keys are "primary key characters" and the letters spaced in off-center locations of each key are "secondary key characters." Komev i-f 24 (describing Fig. 2A). 3 Appeal2014-008115 Application 13/268,270 208 20C '""' G H 4 p Q R s I aiA I ~ ABC .. D 1T~U1 D I 212 D D z I I ~ 104 204 22D 2rn 220 Komev Fig. 2A Depicting a Touch Screen Display Komev states that the keys are selectable by a user "who selects a particular key by pressing an appropriate location of the touch screen 104." Komev i-f 23. To select a primary key character, a user may press and then release the key. Komev i-f 24. To select a secondary key character, Komev describes a "two-part touch screen operation" in which a user may press and hold a key and then slide his or her finger along a particular "slide path." Komev i-fi-125-26. More specifically, Komev states that in response to a user pressing and holding a particular key, "[t]he character menu 224 may display a number of menu characters 228," and a user may move a thumb or finger towards or on top of a particular secondary menu character 228 displayed in the character menu 224. Komev i-f 26. Appellant argues the menu characters 228 in character menu 224 correspond to the secondary key characters 220 in the secondary input area 4 Appeal2014-008115 Application 13/268,270 such that selection of a character from character menu 224 is also selection of a character from the key. App. Br. 13-16. Appellant further argues "the intention" of Komev is to provide for a selection of a desired secondary character. As such, Appellant argues Komev does not satisfy the wherein clause of claim 1, and equivalent clauses of independent claims 13 and 17. We find Appellant's argument unpersuasive, however, as the plain language of the wherein clause recites "the displayed objects of the second input area," and we agree with the Examiner that the plain language of claim 1 viewed in light of Appellant's Specification would not exclude Komev's disclosure of a selection of characters in character menu 224 even though a given character corresponds to one of the characters on a key in Komev's key region. We are also unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that Komev fails to disclose the "modify" limitation because, as cited by the Examiner (Ans. 5), Komev states that the character menu highlights as a character in response to a user's selection (Komev i-f 26) and, among other things, dependent claim 4 identifies highlighting as a form of modifying (App. Br. 19 (claim 4 reciting "wherein modifying one of the additional objects comprises highlighting the object")). Having considered each of Appellant's arguments in view of the Examiner's rejections, we are unpersuaded of error and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasons consistent with the above. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-21. 5 Appeal2014-008115 Application 13/268,270 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation