Will John. Temple

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 20, 2020

13068817 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
13/068,817 05/19/2011 Will John Temple 7656
7590 03/20/2020
Will John Temple
PO Box 1993
Placerville, CA 95667
EXAMINER
FLORES, ROBERTO W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2020 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 WILL JOHN TEMPLE
____________

Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 33–78, which are all the claims pending
in this application.2 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). Appellant, appearing pro se, identifies the real party in
interest as Will John Temple, the inventor. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–32 have been canceled.
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure is directed “to user interfaces of computing
devices and mobile electronic devices, and more particularly, to computing
devices and mobile electronic devices that interpret user presses, releases,
and motions of buttons, keys, or touch screen objects to determine device
commands.” Spec. 1.
Claims 33 and 64 are illustrative of the invention and read as follows:
33. A computer implemented method for enabling a
user to interact with an electronic device through one or more
multidirectional buttons exclusive from the use of typing, the
method comprising:
a. receiving one or more signals associated with one or
more user presses on a top surface of the multidirectional
buttons;
b. determining some initial positions of the user presses;
c. determining one or more motion thresholds from the
determined initial positions of the user presses, wherein the
motion thresholds comprising some thresholds of displacement
or thresholds of force;
d. receiving some motion signals associated with some
lateral user press motions, wherein the press motions are
substantially within a plane generally coincident to the top
surface of the multi directional buttons;
e. determining whether the lateral press motions exceed
the one or more motion thresholds;
f. determining one or more directions of the lateral press
motions from the determined initial positions of the user presses
and the motion signals;
g. detecting one or more release signals associated with
the user releasing the user presses of the multidirectional
buttons;
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
3
h. determining a command from a plurality of command
choices, wherein each of the multidirectional buttons comprise
a plurality of the command choices, wherein the command is
determined from the detections and determinations of the
method comprising the determination of whether the lateral
press motions exceed the motion thresholds and/or the
determination of directions of the lateral press motions, and
wherein one of the plurality of command choices is a center
choice, wherein the command of the center choice to be input
from the multidirectional button to the device is selected by the
user releasing the user press with the press motion within the
motion threshold;
i. inputting the command to the device
whereby the user may quickly and reliably choose a
command from the plurality of the command choices available
in any one of the multidirectional buttons within and including
one press and release, wherein the chosen command is input
from the one or more multidirectional buttons to the device.
64. A computer implemented method for enabling a
user to interact with an electronic device through a
multidirectional button; the method comprising: initializing the
multidirectional button by a process or an event selected from a
group consisting of a preceding button press of the
multidirectional button and a command to initiate the
multidirectional button, wherein a preceding button press
comprises pressing a touch screen with a force greater than the
force needed for the detection of the press as a touch; detecting
some button events of the multidirectional button, the button
events comprising: the preceding button press, some
substantially planar motions of the multidirectional button or a
touch or a mouse exceeding some motion thresholds in a
direction substantially lateral from and generally perpendicular
to the direction of the pressing of the multidirectional button,
and a press release of the multidirectional button; distinguishing
the motions that exceed the motion thresholds with the
preceding button press from the motions without the preceding
button press; determining one or more commands for the device
from a sequence of the button events with the preceding button
press; and determining one or more commands for the device
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
4
from a sequence of the button events without the preceding
button press; whereby the user may select from some different
commands with substantially the same motions depending on
whether the user first pressed the multidirectional button with
the preceding press to input commands into the device.
Appeal Br. A-1 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Kushler et al. (“Kushler”) US 2004/0140956 A1 July 22, 2004
Verhaegh US 2005/0225538 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Zotov et al. (“Zotov”) US 2007/0262964 A1 Nov. 15, 2007
Steiner et al. (“Steiner”) US 2008/0158024 Al July 3, 2008
Kocienda et al.
(“Kocienda”) US 2008/0168366 A1 July 10, 2008
Jobs et al. (“Jobs”) US 2008/0174570 A1 July 24, 2008
Mouilleseaux et al.
(“Mouilleseaux”) US 2009/0327964 A1 Dec. 31, 2009
Nwosu US 2010/0020033 A1 Jan. 28, 2010

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 33, 45, 53, 63, 73, 74, 75 and 78 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 4–5.
Claims 64 and 69 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) as
being anticipated by Steiner. Final Act. 6–9.
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
5
Claims 33–40, 42–46, 60, 61, 63, 65–68, 71 and 74–77 stand rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mouilleseaux
and Steiner. Final Act. 10–32.
Claim 41 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mouilleseaux, Steiner, and Zotov. Final Act. 33–34.
Claims 47–50 and 59 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mouilleseaux, Steiner, and Verhaegh. Final Act.
34–40.
Claims 51, 54, 56, 70, and 72 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mouilleseaux, Steiner, and Jobs. Final
Act. 41–48.
Claim 52 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mouilleseaux, Steiner, Jobs, and Kocienda. Final Act.
48–51.
Claims 55 and 62 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mouilleseaux, Steiner, and Kushler. Final Act. 51–
54.
Claims 57, 58, and 73 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mouilleseaux, Steiner, and Nwosu.
Final Act. 54–60.
Claim 53 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mouilleseaux, Steiner, Zotov, and Nwosu. Final Act. 60–
63.
Claim 78 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Steiner and Jobs. Final Act. 63–64.
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
6
Related Appeals
Appellant identifies Application 14/539,977, which is to the same
inventor, as a related appeal.3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Br. 5–93; Reply Br. 1–23) that the Examiner has erred,
but we disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response, supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the
contentions raised by Appellant. See Ans. 2–18. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (id.). With
respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a), we agree
with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion and adopt them as our own.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we
consider Appellant’s untimely arguments in the Reply Brief waived. We
highlight the following points for emphasis.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
The Examiner rejects independent claims 33, 45, 53, 63, 73–75, and
78 as failing to comply with the written description requirement because the
terms “exclusive from the use of typing” in claims 33 and 63, “exclusive
from navigating the multidirectional buttons” in claims 45, 63, and 75 do not
have any support in the Specification. Final Act. 4. The Examiner further
finds the terms “wherein a command in a left selection region of the
multidirectional button” in claim 73, “wherein the directions are unrelated to

3 Application 14/539,977 is appealed under appeal number 2018-005668.
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
7
the placement of the multidirectional buttons” in claim 45, “wherein the
command . . . is an alphabetical character” in claim 53, and “the center
selection region consists of one keystroke” in claim 78 have no support in
the Specification. Final Act. 5.
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s rejection. To the extent
Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular
claims or issues, such arguments are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2016); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BP AI
2010) (precedential) (“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a
particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board
will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of
the rejection. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given
ground of rejection as waived)”). Additionally, “[i]f a ground of rejection
stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has
waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may
summarily sustain it unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner’s answer.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(“MPEP”) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
We also observe that, for the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant
presents arguments regarding this rejection. Reply Br. 1–3. These
arguments are entitled to no consideration because they were not presented
for the first time in the opening brief, and Appellant has not shown good
cause why they should be considered, as required by our procedural rule.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2) (2012); accord Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
1473, 1473–74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of
good cause, the Board is not required to address an argument newly
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
8
presented in the reply brief that could have been presented in the principal
brief on appeal).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
33, 45, 53, 63, 73, 74, 75, and 78 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claim 64
Appellant contends the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 13 of Steiner
does not support the anticipation rejection of claim 64 because “the
‘multidirectional button’ is initiated from a ‘press of the multidirectional
button’ or ‘a command to initiate the multidirectional button,’” which are
both multidirectional buttons, “Steiner’s NON-multidirectional key does
NOT disclose these elements, as the Examiner incorrectly found.” Appeal
Br. 33. According to Appellant, Steiner’s shift key is not a multidirectional
button for providing multiple commands because it has one function when
pressed. Id. Additionally, Appellant argues pressing the shift key in Steiner
does not meet the claimed “depending on whether the user first pressed the
multidirectional button.” Appeal Br. 34.
The Examiner responds by explaining that claim 64 does not specify
“how hard” the user presses to select different commands, including a
“touch.” Ans. 7. With respect to Steiner’s “shift key” as a “preceding
button press,” the Examiner finds:
Claim does not recite a preceding multidirectional button.
Claim recites (1) a preceding button press of the (2)
multidirectional button, where the (1) and (2) are considered
two buttons. The claim recite “the multidirectional button”
which is the antecede basis for “a multidirectional button” and
it is not the antecede basis for “a preceding button press”.
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
9
Thus, the shift key presented by Steiner in figure 13, 134
disclose the preceding button press.
Ans. 8.
We agree with the Examiner that the claim does not specifically
require comparing the force needed for detecting a touch and initializing the
multidirectional button. First, the claim recites “initializing the
multidirectional button by a process or an event selected from a group
consisting of a preceding button press of the multidirectional button and a
command to initiate the multidirectional button,” which presents two choices
for initializing the multidirectional button. That is, pressing the shift key in
Steiner meets the second choice of “a command to initiate the
multidirectional button” with no regard for how hard the shift key is pressed.
See Steiner Fig. 13, ¶ 136 (“A press on the shift key 134 or number key 136
causes the symbols to change on the buttons, so that no additional space is
required.”). Second, as correctly stated by the Examiner (Ans. 8), pressing
the shift key meets pressing a preceding button as one of the button events,
which in turn, initializes a multidirectional button shown in Figures 4 and
17.
To the extent Appellant argues the recited “determining one or more
commands for the device from a sequence of the button events with the
preceding button press; and determining one or more commands for the
device from a sequence of the button events without the preceding button
press” indicates different commend selections based on “the force of the
initial press” (see Reply Br. 11), we remain unpersuaded that the claim
requires any distinction of how hard the preceding button is pressed. As
such, pressing the shift key in Steiner meets the “preceding button press”
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
10
and provides different commands based on whether the shift key is pressed
initially to initialize the multidirectional button.
Claim 69
Appellant contends Steiner does not disclose the recited “common
keyboard” because Steiner’s keyboard “comprises of a ‘keyboard
constructed from a limited number of keys’, which in the cited Figure 13,
comprises FIVE keys” and considered as “an alternative to a common
keyboard, as would anyone.” Appeal Br. 36; see also Reply Br. 12.
According to Appellant, the keyboard depicted in Figure 13 of Steiner
represents an arrangement of three keys, which is different from a “common
keyboard” comprising “at least 26 common keys.” Id.
The Examiner responds by relying on the keys representing a
QWERTY keyboard in Figure 13 of Steiner which “provides a keyboard
with A-Z keys and thus it is a common keyboard.” Ans. 9. Based on the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “common,” the Examiner
finds those three multidirectional keys represent all the letters in a
QWERTY keyboard meet the recited term and are similar to the common
keyboard depicted in Appellant’s Figure 1. Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and add that Appellant’s
disclosure describes a “common keyboard” as a set of keys representing the
characters present in a QWERTY keyboard. See e.g., Figs. 7–16; Spec. pp.
28–30. The cited portions of Appellant’s disclosure refer to the “key layout”
of a “common keyboard” that is adapted to be displayed on one or more
multidirectional button. That is, to the extent Appellant’s disclosure refers
to a common keyboard having 26 common keys generally (see above),
Steiner discloses multidirectional buttons that present selectable keys similar
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
11
to those on a common QWERTY keyboard having a conventional layout.
See also Steiner Figs 4, 8, 13, 14.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding Steiner teaches the disputed
features of claims 64 and 69. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 64 and 69.

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 33
In rejecting claim 33, the Examiner finds Mouilleseaux teaches all the
recited claim limitations, but not “wherein one of the plurality of command
choices is a center choice, wherein the command of the center choice to be
input from the multidirectional button to the device is selected by the user
releasing the user press with the press motion within the motion threshold,”
for which the Examiner relies on Steiner. See Final Act. 10–13. The
Examiner finds the proposed combination would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art because “inputs may be categorized into central
inputs as suggested by Steiner in [0093]” and “multidirectional buttons
should be arranged or shaped according in order to meet the design
perspective since Mouilleseaux teaches in [0055] that GUI object can be
arbitrarily shaped and arranged.” Final Act. 13.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 33 over the
combination of Mouilleseaux and Steiner because “Mouilleseaux’s radial
menus are simply not the ‘buttons’ element of the claim.” Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant argues that the recited multidirectional buttons are distinguishable
from the radial menus of Mouilleseaux because “[t]he present claims make it
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
12
clear that its buttons are buttons by stating: “wherein one of the plurality of
command choices is a center choice exclusive from navigating the
multidirectional button,” which “distinguishes the center choice from radial
menus of the prior art that may use the center of their menus to navigate
through submenus, but not to enter commands into the device.” Appeal Br.
6; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
With respect to the teachings of Steiner, Appellant contends the
disclosed center choice of Steiner’s keys are used for typing, whereas as “the
presently claimed user interface objects that are ‘exclusive from the use of
typing’, as claimed, which clearly differentiates the present invention from
this prior art.” Id. Appellant refers to the date of the prior art references and
the filing date of the instant application to show non-obviousness of the
claimed subject matter. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues the cited step 605 of
Mouilleseaux in Figure 6 does not teach the recited “receiving one or more
signals associated with one or more user presses on a top surface of the
multidirectional buttons” because “the term ‘button’ is a button on a mouse”
and not a “‘top surface’ of a multidirectional buttons.” Appeal Br. 7–8.
Additionally, Appellant argues the cited portions of Mouilleseaux do not
disclose the remaining claim features related to determining the initial
positions, the motion thresholds, the lateral user press motion, the directions
the lateral press motion, and the release signal, as well as comparing the
lateral motion with the threshold to select a command. See Appeal Br. 8–11.
Regarding the Examiner’s stated reason for the combination and
reliance on Paragraph 55 of Mouilleseaux, Appellant argues a center choice
is not suggested because Mouilleseaux arranges the selectable items around
a center location. Appeal Br. 13. According to Appellant, “[t]he Examiner
has given no reasoning why a person skilled in the art would combine an
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
13
isolated element (which isn’t even the same element) with the radial menus
of Mouilleseaux, which are for different uses.” Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner responds that changing the circular shape of the soft
buttons A–E depicted in Figure 4 of Mouilleseaux to a rectangular shape
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 3. The
Examiner also explains that the limitation “exclusive from navigating the
multidirectional button” is recited only in claim 45 and is met by Steiner’s
center choice which represents the character “S.” Ans. 3–4. We agree with
the Examiner’s findings and observe that adding Steiner’s center choice to
the multidirectional button of Mouilleseaux is not precluded by the radial
arrangement of the disclosed items A–E, which may be arbitrary shaped and
arranged around a focal point that is not necessarily required to coincide
with the center choice. See Mouilleseaux Fig. 4. We further agree with the
Examiner’s characterization of the mouse click and release in Mouilleseaux
as the recited user press, which is consistent with Appellant’s own disclosure
of selecting “pointer buttons” using a mouse. Ans. 4 (citing ¶ 114 of the
published application US 2011/0285651 A1 which corresponds to Spec. pp.
10–11). With respect to the remaining teachings of Mouilleseaux, we also
agree with the Examiner’s findings. See Ans. 5.
In response to Appellant’s arguments regarding Steiner, the Examiner
relies on paragraph 136 of Steiner as teaching “touching the leftmost button
with a stroke moving from the center upwards and leftwards may be
recognized as the letter Q, etc.” and on paragraph 137 as teaching “the
vector preferably detected in terms of a start point and a direction” or
alternatively, as “a direction and an end point.” Ans. 5–6. Based on a
review of the cited passages in Steiner, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusion that “Steiner disclose motion threshold in order to
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
14
distinguish between ‘Q’ selection, ‘S’ selection and other selections.” Ans.
6.
We also agree with the Examiner that the combination would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the claim does not
preclude having a central point in addition to a central choice. In other
words, contrary to Appellant’s assertions (see Reply Br. 4–5), the proposed
combination would suggest adding a central choice to the button
arrangement of Mouilleseaux in combination with a radial menu.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Mouilleseaux and Steiner teaches or suggests the subject
matter of claim 33. See Appeal Br. 15, 24.
Claim 45
The Examiner rejected independent claims 45 on the same basis as
claim 33. Final Act. 18–21. Appellant argues the patentability of this claim
by relying on arguments that are substantially the same as those presented
for claim 33. See Appeal Br. 15–23; Reply Br. 8–10. We also agree with
the Examiner’s stated position and response and adopt them as our own. See
Ans. 6–7. In light of our analysis above and Appellant’s arguments (see id.),
we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 45 over the
combination of Mouilleseaux and Steiner.
Claim 63
The Examiner rejected independent claim 63 on the same basis as
claim 33 (see Final Act. 25–28) and further found the buttons of Figure 4 of
Mouilleseaux are modified in Figure 21 for functions, such as action, filter,
and print, which meet the claimed “instructions for displaying and
processing one or more virtual multidirectional buttons exclusive from the
use of typing on one or more display screens.” Final Act. 25–26. Appellant
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
15
argues the patentability of this claim by relying on arguments that are
substantially the same as those presented for claim 33, such as asserting that
“Mouilleseaux teaches a radial menu, and not buttons.” See Appeal Br. 24–
32. In light of our analysis above and Appellant’s arguments (see id.) and
the Examiner’s stated position and reasoning in the Final Action, we
conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 63 over the
combination of Mouilleseaux and Steiner.
Claim 72
The Examiner found the combination of Mouilleseaux and Steiner
teach or suggest all the limitation of claim 72, but not “tracking some
characters of one or more words that are currently being typed by the user;
wherein the commands are substantially comprised of a plurality of
keystrokes,” which may be completed when the user “may quickly and
accurately select one of the plurality of command choices and enter some
remaining characters of the currently typed word or phrase within and
including one press and release of the multidirectional button.” The
Examiner further relied on Jobs as disclosing the missing limitation. Final
Act. 42 (citing Jobs Fig 6B, ¶ 245). According to the Examiner, combining
Jobs with Mouilleseaux and Steiner would have been obvious because of the
advantageous word suggestion which would “provide a list of possible
words to complete the word fragment being typed by the user as suggested
by Jobs in [0245].” Id.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection suffers from the
same deficiencies discussed for claim 33 and additionally argues “the
present claim enables a user to complete word fragments through the
multidirectional buttons of the claim” and “is an entirely different element
from Job's ‘word suggestion area’, which is a now common suggestion bar.”
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
16
Appeal Br. 37–39. According to Appellant, in claim 72, “[i]t is the
multidirectional button themselves that provide the choice of entering
‘plurality of keystrokes’, and not a separate area.” Appeal Br. 39.
The Examiner responds by stating that “[t]he main purpose of Jobs is
showing the idea of having word suggestion and/or possible words since
Mouilleseaux provides multidirectional button where the multidirectional
buttons themselves that provide the choice of menu and submenus in figure
10a, A-E.” Ans. 9–10. In other words, contrary to Appellant’s argument
(Reply Br. 12), the rejection relies on Jobs for teaching or suggesting the
function of word suggestion to complete the word or phrases entered by the
user, and not on the entire interface disclosed by the reference. We agree
with the Examiner findings and reasoning for combinability because all of
the features of the secondary reference need not be bodily incorporated into
the primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore,
the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art
reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant did not rebut the Examiner’s findings in a Reply Brief.
Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim
72 over the combination of Mouilleseaux, Steiner, and Jobs.
Claim 76
The Examiner rejected independent claim 76 on the same basis as
claim 33 (see Final Act. 30–32) and further found the direction and amount
of mouse movement shown in Figure 6 of Mouilleseaux explain how far the
mouse has to move to select a specific area on the multidirectional button.
Final Act. 30 (citing Mouilleseaux ¶¶ 73–76). Appellant argues the
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
17
patentability of this claim by relying on arguments that are substantially the
same as those presented for claim 33 (see Appeal Br. 39–47), and further
asserts “the term ‘motion threshold’ in the present claim is not a ‘range of
angles’ and it is not used to determine a ‘wedge’ through which a cursor
passes.” Appeal Br. 39, Reply Br. 12. We are unpersuaded that the
disclosure of Mouilleseaux with respect to “the direction and speed of the
mouse” in paragraphs 73–76 is different from the recited “motion
threshold.” That is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed
claim term, consistent with Appellant’s disclosure, encompasses measuring
the threshold as the mouse moves in any direction or in any angle as long as
the motion is detectable, measureable, and compared to the threshold value.
See Spec. p. 10 (defining “motion threshold” as the distance between the
first press and the release locations); Figs. 2B, 6D.
In view of our analysis above regarding claim 33 and Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Br. 39–47) and the Examiner’s stated position and
reasoning in the Final Action, we conclude the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 76 over the combination of Mouilleseaux and Steiner.
Claim 78
The Examiner found Steiner teaches or suggests all the limitation of
claim 78, but not “one or more of the command choices corresponding to the
other selection regions each comprise a plurality of keystrokes, wherein the
plurality of keystrokes comprise some remaining characters of a word,” for
which the Examiner relies on Jobs. Final Act. 63–64 (citing Jobs Fig 6B,
¶ 245). Appellant contends “Steiner’s keyboard is for typing one keystroke
at a time, and does not enable a user to select from ‘a plurality of keystrokes’
within ‘one press and release of the multidirectional key.’” Appeal Br. 47.
Appellant further argues “the present claim does not include the step of
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
18
‘tracking some characters’” and “the ‘word suggestion area’ of Jobs in not
an element in the present claim.” Id.
In response to Appellant’s contentions, the Examiner explains the
rejection is based on the combination of Steiner and Jobs where “Steiner
teaches a multidirectional button 132 above in figure 13” and “the main
purpose of Jobs is show the idea of having word suggestion and/or possible
words since Steiner provides multidirectional buttons 132 in figure 13.”
Ans. 11. In other words, the rejection relies on Jobs for teaching or
suggesting the function of word suggestion and on Steiner as disclosing the
keystrokes from different locations of a multidirectional key or button.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument (Reply Br. 13), the Examiner’s proposed
rejection relies on the relevant portions of Steiner in combination with the
command choices that correspond to other selection regions that relate to the
remaining characters of a word. Final Act. 64. We also agree with the
Examiner findings for combinability of Jobs with Steiner, as discussed
above regarding claim 72. Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claim 78 over the combination of Steiner and Jobs.
Remaining Dependent Claims
Appellant contends the proposed combination of references does not
teach or suggest the limitations of dependent claims based on substantially
similar reasoning presented for independent claims. Appeal Br. 49–93,
Reply Br. 14–23. The Examiner has identified the relevant teachings in the
applied references as they correspond to the disputed features. See Final
Act. 13–18, 21–25, 28–30, 32–45, 48–63. Additionally, the Examiner has
provided a detailed response, supported by sufficient evidence based on the
teachings of the cited prior art, to each of the contentions raised by
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
19
Appellant. Ans. 11–18. Based on our review of the reference teachings and
the analysis outlined above, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that
the Examiner erred in finding the disclosures of the applied references teach
or suggest the disputed features of dependent claims.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons and our findings that the combination of
Mouilleseaux and Steiner, or Steiner, alone or in combination with other
applied prior art, teaches or suggests the disputed features of claims 33–63,
65–68, and 70–78, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
33, 45, 53, 63,
73, 74, 75, 78
112 Written Description 33, 45, 53, 63,
73, 74, 75, 78

64, 69 102(b) Steiner 64, 69
33–40, 42–46,
60, 61, 63, 65–
68, 71, 74–77
103(a) Mouilleseaux, Steiner 33–40, 42–46,
60, 61, 63, 65–
68, 71, 74–77

41 103(a) Mouilleseaux, Steiner,
Zotov
41
47–50, 59 103(a) Mouilleseaux, Steiner,
Verhaegh
47–50, 59
51, 54, 56, 70, 72 103(a) Mouilleseaux, Steiner,
Jobs
51, 54, 56, 70,
72

52 103(a) Mouilleseaux, Steiner,
Jobs, Kocienda
52
55, 62 103(a) Mouilleseaux, Steiner,
Kushler
55, 62
Appeal 2018-004757
Application 13/068,817
20
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
57, 58, 73 103(a) Mouilleseaux, Steiner,
Nwosu
57, 58, 73
53 103(a) Mouilleseaux, Steiner,
Zotov, Nwosu
53
78 103(a) Steiner, Jobs 78
Overall
Outcome

33–78

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