Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2020

2019005599 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2020)

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.
14/631,205 02/25/2015 Russell Speight VanBlon 710.332_CIP 6259
58127 7590 12/28/2020
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
KETEMA, BENYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2020 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 RUSSELL SPEIGHT VANBLON, ARNOLD S. WEKSLER,
NATHAN J. PETERSON, JOHN CARL MESE,
ROD D. WALTERMANN, and JASON PRATT PARISH
Appeal 2019-005599
Application 14/631,205
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lenovo
(Singapore) PTE. LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005599
Application 14/631,205

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to displaying a keyboard layout on an
information handling device. See Spec. ¶¶ 19–23. Claims 1–20 are
pending; claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Appeal Br. 24–28. Claim 1
is reproduced below for reference (emphases added):
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor, gaze tracking data
associated with a user’s determining, using a processor, a
location, on an information handling device, associated with the
user's gaze based upon the gaze tracking data;
identifying, using a processor, a content type associated
with the determined location, wherein the content type identifies
a character type;
identifying an input modality corresponding to the
character type, wherein the identifying an input modality
comprises identifying an input modality allowing provision of
the identified character type; and
displaying, on a display device, at a location different from
the location of the user’s gaze, the input modality.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 11 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 6.
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Maltz (US 2012/0019662 A1; Jan. 26, 2012). Final
Act. 7.

Appeal 2019-005599
Application 14/631,205

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant does not separately argue the claims. See Appeal Br. 17.
We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We
disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with
our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis.

A. Written Description
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding claim 1 lacks support
for the recited “displaying…at a location different from the location of the
user’s gaze,” because “the claimed limitation is at least implied (and
arguably expressly described) by the present application as it was originally
filed.” Appeal Br. 18. Particularly, Appellant contends “the specification
describes ‘an embodiment may reduce the size of the input modality,’”
which “inherently describes that the input modality is at a location other than
the location of the user’s gaze.” Id. at 19; Spec. ¶ 47. “Otherwise,”
according to Appellant, “the displayed keypad would cover the entry field.”
Appeal Br. 19.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Appellant argues the
Specification “implied” the disputed claim terms, which is not sufficient to
show the inventors had possession of the limitation. Contra Appeal Br. 18;
see Ans. 3. The portions of the Specification relied on by Appellant merely
describe changing the size of the input modality. See Appeal Br. 18, 19. We
Appeal 2019-005599
Application 14/631,205

4
agree with the Examiner that this disclosure does not support the claim
recitation: reducing the size of the input modality will uncover a location
within the user’s gaze; there is no disclosure that the modality is at a location
different from the gaze location. See Ans. 4; Spec. ¶ 23 (“the content the
user is looking at comprises a large area of the display and may reduce the
size of the keyboard to minimize the amount of content that is covered by
the keyboard”), ¶ 47; see also Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The purpose of [the written description requirement]
is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims,
does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art
as described in the patent specification.”).
Appellant has not identified any Specification disclosure of
controlling the location of the modality, within the meaning of the claim.
See Final Act. 6. Nor do we see such disclosure, on the record before us.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection.

B. Anticipation
Changed Input Modality
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “the
claims specifically require that the modality can be changed based upon the
identified content,” whereas “Maltz, on the other hand, only provides a
virtual wheel as the only input modality.” Appeal Br. 21. We are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
First, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive for not being
commensurate with the scope of the claims. That is, claim 1 recites
“identifying” and “displaying” an input modality corresponding to a
Appeal 2019-005599
Application 14/631,205

5
character type. Appeal Br. 24. There is no claim limitation requiring a
change of the input modality. See Ans. 6 (“the claim limitation does not
recite said input modality has to be different”). For at least this reason,
Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding the recited
limitations of claim 1 to be anticipated by Maltz. See Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“[T]he Board will not, as a
general matter, unilaterally review . . . uncontested aspects of the
rejection.”).
Second, we agree with the Examiner that Maltz discloses the claimed
“identifying, using a processor, a content type” and “identifying an input
modality” because the reference “discloses user gaze based input keys (i.e.
keyboard) that is associated with content identified (i.e. text massage) being
displayed.” Ans. 6. Maltz describes an information handling device in
which a user can respond to a text message with a “gaze based interface to
select . . . various symbols (letters) (210) intended for transmission [which]
zoom in and out of view as if the letters were rotating on the surface of a
virtual wheel.” Maltz ¶ 46; see also Maltz Fig. 4, ¶ 50. Maltz’s interface
comprises various rows of alphabet, numbers, and other keys. See Maltz
Figs. 3, 5; Final Act. 8; Ans. 5–7. Further, we note Maltz presents, inter
alia, capital letters for the user to compose the beginning of sentences and
lowercase letters for composing the remainder. See Maltz Figs. 3, 5. We
find Maltz’s gaze based key disclosures to be tantamount to the recited
identifying limitations of claim 1.
Third, claim 1 recites “identifying an input modality” without
requiring a specific entity or object for performing the step. Therefore, we
find Maltz also anticipates the limitation because Maltz discloses a human
Appeal 2019-005599
Application 14/631,205

6
can identify a modality to provision corresponding character types, such as
identifying a numeric keyboard to provision number keys for typing a phone
number. See Maltz Fig. 7; Final Act. 8.
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs
in finding Maltz discloses the “identifying” limitations of claim 1.

A Location Different
Appellant argues the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 is in
error, because “the virtual wheel of Maltz is always located at the same
location, specifically, the location of the user’s gaze,” such that “Maltz
cannot be said to teach ‘displaying, on a display device, at a location
different from the location of the user’s gaze, the input modality.’” Appeal
Br. 21.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Maltz discloses “at least one
eye position tracking sensor to determine when the user’s eye or eyes are on
average gazing in a direction that is within the eye position zone of at least
one of these plurality of visible elements.” Maltz ¶ 9; see also Maltz ¶ 46
(“various symbols (letters) (210) intended for transmission zoom in and out
of view.”); Final Act. 8. Claim 1 is a method using “comprising” as a
connector, which is an open-ended “term of art used in claim language
which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may
be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus,
Maltz anticipates the claim because Maltz displays one or more input
modalities (unselected keys) in a location different from the location of the
user’s gaze (selected key). See Maltz Figs. 3–5.
Appeal 2019-005599
Application 14/631,205

7
Further, we agree with the Examiner that Maltz’s “Fig[ure] 4
discloses the location of [user’s] gaze on item 400 and subsequent Figure 5
discloses the location of input modality (i.e. keys of a keyboard) at a location
different from user’s gaze location.” Ans. 7 (emphasis added). Claim 1
recites a user gaze and displaying an input modality, but does not require the
display to be at the same time as the gaze. Thus, Maltz also anticipates
claim 1 because Maltz displays a keyboard (Figure 5 of Maltz depicts an
input keyboard in the bottom two rows of the screen) subsequent to
receiving a user gaze in a different location (Figure 4 of Maltz depicts a user
gaze located in the first row of the screen).
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs
in finding Maltz discloses “displaying, on a display device, at a location
different from the location of the user’s gaze, the input modality” recited by
independent claim 1.2 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 11, 20 112 Written
Description
1, 11, 20
1–20 102 Maltz 1–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

2 Separately, we note Maltz further discloses reducing the size of the input
modality by displaying “only one row of virtual targets” rather than
“multiple rows of virtual targets.” Maltz ¶ 58.
Appeal 2019-005599
Application 14/631,205

8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED