Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2021

2020004160 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2021)

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.
14/926,373 10/29/2015 Jianbang Zhang RPS920150029USNP(710.455) 8600
58127 7590 12/17/2021
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2021 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 JIANBANG ZHANG, MATTHEW LLOYD HAGENBUCH,
JOHN WELDON NICHOLSON, and SCOTT EDWARDS KELSO

Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JASON J. CHUNG, BETH Z. SHAW, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–11, and 13–20, which constitute all
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to utilizing hand written input (also
referred to as “ink strokes”) to select content. Abstr., ¶¶ 1–4, Fig. 3.
Claim 1 is representative2 of the invention and reads as follows
(emphases added):
1. A method, comprising:
accepting, at an input surface of an electronic device, ink strokes,
wherein the ink strokes are editing ink strokes;
determining, using a processor of the electronic device, that the ink
strokes include a selection indicator pair;
associating, using a processor of the electronic device, the selection
indicator pair with content, wherein the associating comprises
identifying content bounded by the selection indicator pair and
selecting a grouping of content associated with the content bounded
by the selection indicator pair, wherein the grouping comprises
content that is logically associated with other content within the
grouping and is identified based upon a location of the selection
indicator pair with respect to the content; and
selecting, without additional user input for entering a text selection
mode and using a processor of the electronic device, the content
associated with the selection indicator pair and, thereafter, performing
an additional action with respect to the selected text;
wherein the content is handwriting input;
wherein the identifying comprises utilizing on-screen coordinates for
each ink stroke included in the selection indicator pair.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims Appendix).

2 Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 15–23) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 3–11, and 13–20 on the basis of representative claim 1.
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

3
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hoshino US 2012/0023399 A1 Jan. 26, 2021
Tsai US 2012/0092269 A1 Apr. 19, 2012
Hicks US 2014/0173484 A1 June 19, 2014
Kano US 2012/0139853 A1 June 7, 2012

Claims 1, 3–9, 11, and 13–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hoshino, Tsai, and Hicks. Final Act. 3–9.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hoshino, Tsai, Hicks, and Kano. Final Act. 9–10.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has
erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief. Arguments which Appellant could have made, but did not
make, are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We are not persuaded
by Appellant’s contentions of Examiner error.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of the
teachings of Hoshino, Tsai, and Hicks teaches the limitations of
representative claim 1, and provides reasons for the combination of these
teachings. Final Act. 3–7. The Examiner finds that Hoshino does not
specifically disclose the limitations “the strokes are ink strokes, wherein the
ink strokes are editing strokes, and “the content is handwriting content (also
referred to as “disputed limitation (1)”). Id. at 5. The Examiner finds Tsai
teaches this limitation. Id. at 5–7 (citing Tsai Figs. 15A-16B, 19B; ¶¶ 32,
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

4
40, 42). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the
teaching of Tsai into the system of Hoshino. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds
Hoshino and Tsai are analogous art because they both provide a means for
selecting content via drawing indicator pairs via a touch screen device. Id.
According to the Examiner
One would have been motivated to make such a combination to
enhance the user's experience by providing the user a clearer
indication of his/her input which would enable the user to
visually verify whether or not he/she has correctly drawn an
intended selection indicator and to give the user greater
flexibility in the type of content (including editable content) that
the user can utilize the indicator pair feature with (Tsai: Figs.
15A- 16B and 19, ¶ [0032], [0040], [0042].).

Id. at 5.
The Examiner finds the combination of Hoshino and Tsai does not
specifically disclose the limitation “wherein the grouping comprises content
that is logically associated with other content within the grouping” (also
referred to as “disputed limitation (2)”). Id. at 7. The Examiner finds Hicks
teaches this limitation because selected blocks can be sentences and or
paragraphs (groupings) that are composed of pieces of content such as
words. Id. at 6 (citing Hicks, Abstr.; ¶ 15). Regarding the combination of
the teachings of Hoshini, Tsai, and Hicks, the Examiner determines
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to
modify the electronic device, method and product of Hoshino in
view of Tsai wherein the grouping comprises content that is
logically associated with other content within the grouping, as
taught by Hicks.
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

5
One would have been motivated by to make such a
combination in order to improve the user's experience by
providing a means for enabling faster content selection (Hicks ¶
[0016].).

Id. at 6–7.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs regarding the disputed
limitations by providing inadequate justification to combine the teaching of
Hoshino, Tsai, and Hicks as required for obviousness. Appeal Br. 16–19.
Appellant additionally argues that Hoshino, Tsai, and Hicks do not teach
disputed limitations (1) and (2). Id. at 19–23.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s justification to combine is
conclusory and, according to Appellant, neither Hoshino nor Tsai supports
the conclusion that the combination of the teachings would “enhance the
user's experience by providing the user a clearer indication of his/her input
which would enable the user to visually verify whether or not he/she has
correctly drawn an intended selection indicator.” Id. at 16 (citing Final Act.
6). Appellant argues the Examiner offers a similar conclusory statement for
the alleged motivation to combine Hicks with Hoshino and Tsai. Id.
According to Appellant, even if any of Hoshino, Tsai, and/or Hicks did
support such a conclusion, such a motivation, and the references, is
completely irrelevant to the claimed limitations. Id. Appellant argues
As stated in the specification the present application is directed to a
system in which "an embodiment provides for a quick, two stroke
selection of content. The two stroke selection allows the user to bound
any amount of content. An embodiment allows a user to draw a pair of
strokes (termed herein a selection indicator pair), and all the content in
between the characters of the selection indicator pair will be selected."
Specification at [0015]. As discussed in more detail further below,
none of the references are related to, teach, or even suggest such
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

6
limitations. Additionally, the alleged motivation to combine the
references is also not related to the claimed limitations. Thus,
Applicant respectfully submits that, particularly under the motivation
asserted by the Office, one skilled in the art would not combine the
teachings of Hoshino with either Tsai or Hicks because those combined
teachings would not result in the claimed limitations.

Id. at 17–18.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because “rejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Id. at 17. Appellant argues the
Examiner fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine the references, and how the combination would
result in the claimed limitations. Id. at 18–19.
Appellant argues the Hoshino selection of information is collected,
saved, and used for translation purpose, but does not teach disputed
limitation (2) because Hoshino makes no mention of “content that is
logically associated with other content within the grouping.” Id. at 19–20
(citing Hoshino ¶¶ 202–211, Figs 7, 12). According to Appellant, “Hoshino
selects the content that is within the drawn parentheses and nothing more”
and “Thus, Hoshino does not select [] a grouping of content associated with
the content bounded by the selection indicator pair.” Id. at 20–21.
Appellant argues neither Tsai nor Hicks teaches disputed limitation
(2) because the cited selection methods and techniques utilized cannot be
“logically associated with other content within the groupings and is
identified based upon a location of the selection indicator pair with respect
to the content” because of the selection methods and techniques described
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

7
throughout each references' Specification. Id. at 21 (citing Tsai ¶ [0040];
Hicks, Abstr.). According to Appellant, Tsai and Hicks, like Hoshino, only
selects the content bounded by the selector, a loop in this case, and nothing
more. Id.
Regarding disputed limitation (1), Appellant argues
Tsai does not disclose "wherein the ink strokes are editing ink
strokes". Claim 1. Specifically, referring to paragraphs [0033] -
[0040] of Tsai, the user in Tsai must "draw a circle or an
approximation of a circle (command initiation path) as an end of
the line, the system enters command mode." Tsai at [0033].
Further, "[t]he user can manipulate onscreen content, and
perform actions such as copy/cut". Tsai at [0034]. Applicant
respectfully submits that neither of these input and editing
techniques utilize "handwriting input" nor describes the inputs
for editing the selected information past simply cutting and
copying as illustrated throughout Tsai. Thus, Applicant
respectfully submits that Tsai does not teach what is alleged by
the Office.

Id. at 21–22.
Appellant additionally argues that the alleged “grouping
comprises content that is logically associated with the other
content within the grouping” in Hicks are not
“identified based upon a location of the selection indicator pair
with respect to the content” and “selecting without additional
user input for entering a test selection mode and using a
processor of the electronic device, the content associated with the
selection indicator pair, and thereafter performing an additional
action with respect to the selected text” Claim 1. Id. at 22. (citing
Hicks ¶ 0011).
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

8
According to Appellant, Hicks’ methods utilize multiple initial
touch points within a given content block to adjust and select the
desired information. Id.
In the Answer, regarding the basis for the combination of the
teachings of Hoshino and Tsai to teach disputed limitation (1), the Examiner
reiterates the Final Rejection statement and adds,
Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
be motivated to make the particular combination of features of
Hoshino and Tsai to enhance the user's experience. Examiner
also provides support for this conclusion by identifying the
particular aspects of the combination that would enhance the
user's experience. In particular Examiner argues that displaying
the user's strokes (as taught by Tsai) would provide the user a
clearer indication of his/her input (as compared to the user
strokes taught by Hoshino) which would enable the user to
visually verify whether or not he/she has correctly drawn an
intended selection indicator (see Final Office Action: page 5 last
5 lines and page 6 first 7 lines). Support for this conclusion is
provided in Tsai: Figs. 15A-16B, ¶ [0032], [0040], where Tsai
clearly teaches that the user strokes are visibly presented on the
interface. Examiner also argues that enabling the user to select
handwriting content (as taught by Tsai) would give the user
greater flexibility (as compared to Hoshino) in the type of content
that the user can utilize the indicator pair feature with (see Final
Office Action: page 5 last 5 lines and page 6 first 7 lines).
Support for this conclusion is provided in Tsai: Fig. 19B, ¶
[0040], [0042] where Tsai specifically identifies the various
objects that the user is able to select with the user strokes.
Accordingly, Appellants argument is not persuasive.

Ans. 4.
Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to make the particular combination of features of
Hoshino in view of Tsai and Hicks to enhance the user's
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

9
experience. Examiner also provides support for this conclusion
by identifying the particular aspects of the combination that
would enhance the user's experience. In particular Examiner
argues that having content that is logically associated with other
content within the grouping (as taught by Hicks) would provide
a means for enabling faster content selection (see Final Office
Action: page 6 last 4 lines and page 7 first 3 lines. Support for
this conclusion is provided in Hicks: ¶ [0015]-[0016], where
Hicks describes how the user can quickly select a block of
content based on the logical grouping of the pieces of content.
Accordingly, Appellants argument is not persuasive.

Ans. 5.
The claimed invention is directed to a method of selecting
content via a selection indicator pair. Hoshino describes a method of
selecting content bounded between a pair of user strokes (selection
indicator pairs), Hoshino: Fig. 12, ¶ [0202]-[0209]. Such an invention
is within the field of endeavor of the claimed invention. Tsai describes
a method of selecting content bounded between a pair of user strokes
that are visible (selection indicator pair), Tsai: Figs. 15A-16B, ¶[0032],
[0040]. Such an invention is also within the field of endeavor of the
claimed invention. Hicks describes a method of selecting content
associated with logical groupings of content via user strokes, Hicks:
abstract, ¶ [0015], [0016]. Such an invention is also within the field of
endeavor of the claimed invention. Accordingly, Appellants argument
is not persuasive.

Ans. 5–6.
Examiner clearly outlines what portions of the claims Hoshino
teaches and what portions of the claim Hoshino does not teach
(Final Office Action: pages 3-5). Examiner further outlines how
Tsai teaches specific portions of the claim that Hoshino does not
teach and then provides a motivation as to why one of ordinary
skill in the art would be motivated to combine said specific
portion with the portions taught by Hoshino (Final Office Action:
pages 5-6). Examiner further outlines the remaining portions of
the claims that are not explicitly taught by Hoshino or Tsai and
how Hicks explicitly teaches the remaining portions of the claim
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

10
and then provides a motivation as to why one of ordinary skill in
the art, would be motivated to combine said remaining portion
with the portions taught by Hoshino in view of Tsai (Final Office
Action: pages 6-7). Accordingly, Appellants argument is not
persuasive.

Ans. 6–7.
Regarding Appellant’s arguments that Hoshino, Tsai, and Hicks do
not teach disputed limitation (2), the Examiner reasons that that the claims
do not require the grouping of content to be selected based on the logical
associations between the content and other content within the grouping,
rather representative claim 1 recites “selecting a grouping of content
associated with content bounded by the selection indicator pair” and wherein
the content of the grouping “is identified based upon a location of the
selection indicator with respect to the content.” Id. at 8. The Examiner finds
Hoshino teaches that a grouping of characters of text (content) is
selected/identified based on the user drawing a pair of parentheses in an area
corresponding to the characters of text. Id. (Final Act. 4).
The Examiner finds the claim recites that the grouping of content
comprises content that is logically associated with other content within the
grouping, but, the claim does not recite that the logical associations are
utilized to select the grouping or identify the content, but rather that the
selected grouping would comprise content that have logical associations. Id.
According to the Examiner, as claimed, the limitation simply requires that
the content have logical associations with other content and that said
logically associated content can be selected/identified to form a grouping of
content only based on the location of the selection indicator pair with respect
to the content. Id.
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

11
The Examiner then notes that Hoshino teaches that characters within
the text (content) correspond to logical groupings that form words (grouping
of content) within sentences (larger grouping of content) and further within
paragraphs (even larger grouping of content). Id. at 8 (citing Final Act. 6).
The Examiner finds the characters (content) that are selected are logically
associated with other characters (content) to form words, sentences and
paragraphs. Id. at 8–9. The Examiner notes that, although the Examiner
considers Hoshino to sufficiently teach the limitation, for the sake of
argument, Examiner provided Hicks, and Hicks explicitly teaches that pieces
of content can be logically grouped together as content blocks, in particular,
pieces of content such as words can be grouped together into content blocks
such as sentences. Id. at 9 (citing Final Act. 6). According to the Examiner,
the grouping of content that is selected (i.e. sentences) can include pieces of
content (i.e. words) that are logically associated with other pieces of content
(i.e. other words). Id.
Regarding disputed limitation (1), the Examiner finds Tsai teaches
that the drawn brackets (ink strokes) are used to select objects in order to
enable editing operations. Id. at 10 (citing Final Act. 5). The Examiner
finds since the drawn brackets are a necessary component that enable editing
operations, it is reasonable to interpret the drawn brackets as “editing ink
strokes.” Id. The Examiner finds this interpretation appears to be consistent
with paragraphs [0037] and [0038] of the Specification. Id. The Examiner
finds Tsai also teaches that the objects that can be selected for editing by the
drawn brackets include handwriting ink (handwriting input). Id. 9 (citing
Final Act. 5).
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

12
In the Answer, the Examiner additionally notes that Hicks was not
relied upon to teach that the content are “identified based upon a location of
the selection indicator pair with respect to content” and “selecting without
additional user input for entering a text selection mode and using a processor
of the electronic device, the content associated with the selection indicator
pair, and thereafter, performing an additional action.” Id. at 11 (citing
Appeal Br. 22). The Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. Id. (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208
U.S.P.Q. 871 (C.C.P.A. 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231
U.S.P.Q. 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
In the Reply Brief, regarding the combination of the references,
Appellant reiterates arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and focuses on
the Final Rejection. Reply Br. 15–21. Regarding the teachings of Hoshino,
Tsai, and Hicks, Appellant argues Hoshino selects the content that is within
the drawn parentheses and nothing more, and, therefore, Hoshino does not
“select[] a grouping of content associated with the content bounded by the
selection indicator pair.” Id. at 22–23. Appellant argues, Hicks, like
Hoshino, only selects the content bounded by the selector, a loop in this
case, and nothing more. Id. at 23 (citing Tsai ¶ 40; Hicks Abstr.).
Appellant argues Tsai does not disclose “wherein the ink strokes are
editing ink strokes” because referring to paragraphs [0033]– [0040] of Tsai,
the user in Tsai must “draw a circle or an approximation of a circle
(command initiation path) as an end of the line, the system enters command
mode.” Id. at 23 (quoting Tsai ¶ [0033). Regarding “[t]he user can
manipulate onscreen content, and perform actions such as copy/cut,” Tsai at
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

13
[0034], Applicant argues that neither of these input and editing techniques
utilize “handwriting input” nor describes the inputs for editing the selected
information past simply cutting and copying as illustrated throughout Tsai.
Id. at 23–24.
Regarding disputed limitation (2), Applicant argues
the alleged equivalents to the "grouping comprises content
that is logically associated with the other content within the
grouping" in Hicks are not "identified based upon a location of
the selection indicator pair with respect to the content" and
"selecting without additional user input for entering a test
selection mode and using a processor of the electronic device,
the content associated with the selection indicator pair, and
thereafter, performing an additional action with respect to the
selected text".
Id. at 24.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
as they are based on unreasonably narrow claim interpretation, individual
reference arguments rather than the combination, inapplicable bodily
incorporation, and conclusory attorney arguments. We are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner does not present sufficient
articulated reasons to support the suggested combination of Hoshino, Tsai,
and Hicks. Nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the cited
references do not teach disputed limitations (1) and (2).
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the Specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

14
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Our reviewing court
states that “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted). However, the broadest reasonable
interpretation differs from the broadest possible interpretation. In re Smith
Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The correct inquiry in
giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification is “an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the
inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation
that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” Id. at 1382–83 (quoting In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Appellant argues an unreasonably narrow teaching of the cited
references to attempt to limit the teaching to the express disclosures, and
asserts an overly demanding standard of obviousness. However, we note:

[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on:
[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

15
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Here, the Examiner provides articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In particular,
as discussed supra, the Examiner identifies specific teachings of Hoshino,
Tsai, and Hicks and explains why and how one of ordinary skill would
combine the teachings to result in the disputed limitations as broadly and
reasonably interpreted. Ans. 3–7. Additionally, we note these findings and
conclusions are not persuasively argued in the Reply Brief.
We note Appellant’s reference to the Specification that the “present
application is directed to a system in which an “embodiment provides for a
quick, two stroke selection of content reliance” is not recited in
representative claim 1. Appeal Br. 16–17.
Regarding claim interpretation of disputed limitation (2), we agree
with the Examiner’s interpretation, discussed supra and set forth in the
Answer, that the grouping does not require that the logical associations are
utilized to select the grouping or identify the content. Ans. 8–9. Instead, the
limitation simply requires that the content have logical associations with
other content and that said logically associated content can be
selected/identified to form a grouping of content only based on the location
of the selection indicator pair with respect to the content. Additionally, we
note this interpretation is not persuasively argued in the Reply Brief.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of the
cited references regarding the broad and reasonable interpretation of
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

16
disputed limitation (2). Appellant’s arguments regarding the teachings of
the cited references are not persuasive as they are based on an unreasonably
narrow interpretation of disputed limitation (2).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s arguments
attempt to show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. For example,
Appellant’s argument regarding Hicks and disputed limitation (2) fails to
address the applicable Hoshino teachings presented by the Examiner.
Regarding disputed limitation (1), Tsai teaches “wherein the ink
strokes are editing strokes,” and also teaches drawing a circle. Tsai, Figs.
15A–16B, 19B; ¶¶ 32, 40, 42. Appellant’s arguments are based on
unreasonably narrow claim interpretation and inapplicable bodily
incorporation. Tsai teaches drawn brackets (“ink strokes”) that are used as a
component to select objects for editing and, therefore, it is reasonable to find
Tsai’s drawn brackets teach the claimed “editing ink strokes.” Tsai also
teaches that the objects selected for editing by the drawn brackets include
handwriting ink (“handwriting input”). Tsai, Fig. 19B; ¶ [0042].
Regarding the rejection of dependent claim 10 (which depends from
claim 1), the Examiner’s findings are reasonable and this claim is not
persuasively argued by Appellant. Final Act. 9–10.
On the record before us, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments because the Examiner provides sufficient evidence that the cited
references teach the disputed limitations as broadly and reasonably
interpreted, and the Examiner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinnings to support the combination of the cited
Appeal 2020-004160
Application 14/926,373

17
references. Therefore, we conclude the Examiner does not err in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 3–11, and 13–20.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
representative claim 1, claims 3–11, and claims 13–20.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–9,
11, 13–20
103 Hoshino, Tsai, Hicks 1, 3–9,
11, 13–20

10 103 Hoshino, Tsai, Hicks,
Kano
10
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11,
13–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1)(iv).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED