Ex Parte YAMANO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2016

13268270 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

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