Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 2, 2018

13575913 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2018)

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.
13/575,913 07/27/2012 Fan Yang NC71791US 3802
10949 7590
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
PATEL, MANGLESH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2018 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 sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FAN YANG and SHIJUN YUAN
Appeal 2017-002035
Application 13/575,9131
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—21 which constitute the only claims pending.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to text editing. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for facilitating text editing, comprising:
receiving an input string;
1 The real party in interest is identified as Nokia Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-002035
Application 13/575,913
providing a candidate list comprising language units related to
the input string;
receiving a selection of a language unit from the candidate list;
detecting a deletion operation with respect to the selected
language unit;
retrieving the input string information corresponding to the
language unit from a memory which is configured to store input string
information corresponding to inputted language units during text
inputting;
providing the retrieved input string information to an input
engine to obtain the candidate list based on the input string; and
prompting the retrieved candidate list for the user's selection.
App. Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Chen (CN1011387919 A; pub Mar. 18,
2009) (“Chen”). Final Act. 3-6.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen in view of
Mohamed (U.S. 2004/0205663 Al; pub. Oct. 14, 2004) (“Mohamed”). Final
Act. 6-13.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen, Mohamed, and Lee (U.S. 2009/0193332 Al; pub.
July 30, 2009) (“Lee”). Final Act. 13-14.
Claims 4, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen and Lee. Final Act. 14—20.
2
Appeal 2017-002035
Application 13/575,913
ANALYSIS
The §102 Rejection
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in finding that Chen teaches
the claim 1 limitation retrieving the input string information corresponding
to the language unit from a memory which is configured to store input string
information corresponding to inputted language units during text inputting.
App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 1—3.
Appellants argue that Chen teaches a method for recovering deleted
words in which deleted words are stored in a candidate word list and
[w]hen a user deletes a word or characters of a word, Chen teaches
detecting if the “re-typed characters in the input box” match the
characters and character positions of words in the candidate word list.
If there is a match in the candidate word list, the words that are
compatible are output to a candidate word list box for selection by a
user. Chen is essentially teaching an auto-fill technique that estimates
words based on character matching of words that have previously been
deleted.
App. Br. 17-18.
Appellants argue, in Chen, the "recovery unit" requires "re-typed
characters in the input box" and only after these re-typed characters are
entered are any words output to the candidate word list box, as described in
the abstract. Id. at 18. According to Appellants, Chen is “is clearly distinct
from that which is claimed.” Id. According to Appellants:
[cjlaim 1 recites, based on the deletion operation with respect to the
selected language unit, "retrieving the input string information
corresponding to the language from a memory which is configured to
store the input string information corresponding to inputted language
3
Appeal 2017-002035
Application 13/575,913
units during text inputting." The input string, which is the same as the
originally received input string, is retrieved in order to re-obtain the
candidate list. Chen fails to teach or suggest this claim feature. Chen
only uses characters that are input to retrieve a candidate word list, and
after deletion of characters, requires "re-typed characters in the input
box" to be entered to retrieve a new candidate word list. This teaching
is clearly distinct from the features of Claims 1,9, 10, and 18. Thus,
Appellant asserts that Chen cannot anticipate Claims 1,9, 10, and 18,
such that the rejection thereof is overcome.
Id. at 18. (Emphasis added).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue:
Importantly, the "input string" of Chen is not retrieved from a memory,
but is necessarily "re-typed characters in the input box." The re-typed
characters are then matched with characters in the recording unit
according to the deletion positions of the deleted characters to
determine which words are compatible with the characters behind the
deletion positions. The input string of Chen is always manually entered
and established based on what a user is typing.
Reply Br. 3.
Appellants present additional argument in the Reply Brief for the first
time that are not responsive to a new rejection or shift in the Examiner's
position raised in the Answer. Therefore, in the absence of good cause
shown, these untimely arguments are waived, and we do not consider them
in our decision. Ex Parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(informative).
The Examiner finds that Chen describes the disputed limitation
wherein the recording unit stores the input characters in a storage input box
and also stores words which are generated in a candidate word list box and
are compatible with the characters. Final Act. 3 (citing Chen Abstract). The
4
Appeal 2017-002035
Application 13/575,913
Chen recovery unit determines whether re-typed characters in the input box
are the same as the characters in the recording unit according to the deletion
positions of the deleted characters in the recording unit. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that claim 1 does not recite based
on the deletion operation as argued by Appellants. Ans. 20. The Examiner
then finds:
[t]he retrieving step is not in response to the deletion and therefore can
have intervening steps. In addition "Based on input text" described in
the claims is not the same as "based on the deletion operation".
Furthermore the claims do[] not describe how and from where the
selected language units are deleted.
Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation. Claim terms in a
patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants present no
persuasive evidence that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable or
overbroad, nor that the Examiner’s interpretation is not consistent with the
Specification.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings that Chen describes the disputed limitation as
required for anticipation. A claim is anticipated only if each and every
element as set forth in the claims is found, either expressly or inherently
described in a single prior art reference, and arranged as required by the
claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
5
Appeal 2017-002035
Application 13/575,913
(Fed. Cir. 1987). See also In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, independent
claims 9, 10, and 18 which are argued together with claim 1, and dependent
claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 18 as these claims are not argued separately. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The §103 Rejections
Regarding the rejection of independent claims 5 and 14 over Chen and
Mohamed, Appellants rely on the claim 1 argument, supra, as Mohamed is
cited only for the teaching of a portable device. App. Br. 19. We sustain the
rejection of claims 5 and 14 for the same reasons as discussed regarding
claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of independent claims 19, 20, and 21 over
Chen and Lee, Appellants rely on the claim 1 argument, supra, and “assert[]
that both Chen and Lee fail to teach or suggest retrieving input string
information based on a deletion operation, much less providing the retrieved
candidate list to an input engine to obtain a candidate list, which is then
provided to a user for selection.” Id. at 20. We sustain the rejection of
claims 19, 20, and 21 for the same reasons as discussed regarding claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2—4, 6—8, 11—13, and 15—17,
Appellants rely on dependency to independent claims discussed supra, and
do not argue the claims separately. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 2-A, 6-8, 11-13, and 15-17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal 2017-002035
Application 13/575,913
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4—8, 11—17, and
19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7