Ex Parte Chang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

14054018 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/054,018 10/15/2013
62579 7590 03/28/2018
APPLE INC.
c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RayL. Chang
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.
Pl9453US1 4331
EXAMINER
TRAN, TANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
patentdocket@bhfs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYL. CHANG
Appeal 2017-011160
Application 14/054,018 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-22, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
February 28, 2017; the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed August 29, 2017;
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed June 30, 2017; Non-Final Office Action
("Non-Final Act.") mailed August 11, 2016; and original Specification
("Spec."), filed October 15, 2013.
Appeal2017-011160
Application 14/054,018
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention relates to systems and methods for "input entry"
and "enhanced input selection" that "switches between a gesture mode and a
character mode," where "[i]n the gesture mode, one or more touches
detected by [a] touch sensor are interpreted as gesture input for navigating
[a] list," and "[i]n the character mode, the touches are interpreted as
character input for navigating the list." Spec. i-fi-f l, 5; Title (capitalization
altered); Abstract.
Claims 1, 21, and 22 are independent. Representative claims 1 and 21
are reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A system for input entry, comprising:
at least one processing unit; and
at least one touch sensor;
wherein:
the at least one touch sensor is operable in at least:
a gesture mode where at least one touch detected
by the at least one touch sensor is interpreted as at least
one gesture input for navigating at least one list; and
a character mode where the at least one touch
detected by the at least one touch sensor is interpreted as
at least one character input for navigating the at least one
list; and
navigating the at least one list comprises navigating to a
portion of the at least one list that a user has marked with the at
least one character input.
21. A method for input entry, comprising:
interpreting at least one first touch input detected by at
least one touch sensor as at least one gesture for navigating at
least one list when operating the at least one touch sensor in a
gesture mode;
2
Appeal2017-011160
Application 14/054,018
determining to switch the at least one touch sensor to a
character mode when a user interface provided by at least one
processing unit is configured for character input; and
interpreting at least one second touch input detected by
the at least one touch sensor as at least one character for
navigating the at least one list when operating the at least one
touch sensor in the character mode by navigating to a portion
of the at least one list that has a status associated with the at
least one character.
App. Br. i-iii (Claims App'x). 3
Evidence Considered
Yeh US 2005/0264538 Al Dec. 1, 2005
Jania US 8,640,046 B 1 Jan.28,2014
Fux US 2012/0290287 Al Nov. 15, 2012
Penttinen US 2009/0327948 Al Dec. 31, 2009
Yeh-2 US 2010/0131188 Al May 27, 2010
Gao US 2006/0092128 Al May4, 2006
Kim US 2013/0232437 Al Sept. 5, 2013
Nakajima US 2012/0124469 Al May 17, 2012
Examiner's Rejections
(1) Claims 1---6, 9, 11, 12, 17-20, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh and Jania. Non-Final Act.
3-9.
(2) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yeh, Jania, and Fux. Non-Final Act. 10.
3 Appellant uses Roman numerals for Claims Appendix pages.
3
Appeal2017-011160
Application I 4/054,0 I 8
(3) Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03 as being
unpatentable over Yeh, Jania, and Penttinen. Non-Final Act. IO-I I.
(4) Claim IO stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03 as being
unpatentable over Yeh, Jania, and Yeh-2. Non-Final Act. I 1.
(5) Claims I3-I6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03 as being
unpatentable over Yeh, Jania, and Gao. Non-Final Act. I2-I5.
(6) Claim 2I stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03 as being
unpatentable over Yeh, Jania, Kim, and Nakajima. Non-Final Act. I5-I 7.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim I, the Examiner finds Yeh' s remote
controller teaches a system for input entry including a processing unit
(microcontroller IO) and a touch sensor (touchpad I2), as claimed. Non-
Final Act. 3 (citing Yeh i-f 24, Fig. I). The Examiner further finds Yeh's
touch sensor is operable in a gesture mode (scroll mode) and in a character
mode (handwriting mode) in which a touch detected by the touch sensor is
interpreted as a character input. Non-Final Act. 3--4 (citing Yeh i-fi-127, 30).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on
Jania for teaching navigating a list by navigating to a portion of the list that a
user has marked with a character input. Non-Final Act. 4. In particular, the
Examiner finds Jania's system allows a user to navigate/jump to a particular
contact list sub-portion---e.g., a list sub-portion of contacts that start with
letter 'T'-that the user's gesture has marked with handwritten character 'j."
Ans. I 7; Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Jania 4:32-35, 5:6I---6:3, Figs. IA-ID).
4
Appeal2017-011160
Application I 4/054,0 I 8
Jania's Figures IA-ID are reproduced below with additional
markings for illustration.
(100
=
,r100
,~·--····,-102
1040 r"1(}2
Art
Bianca
Bill
I
10GA
FIG.1A
Jack
James
~:::em
Jez l
' Je ica I
' '
\
1068
\
\
FIG.1B
Jenson
\
106C
FIG.1C
Jessica
Jessy
Jim
Jules
Julie
June
FIG.10
Jania's Figures IA-ID illustrate a list of items (e.g., list of contacts on a
mobile phone) displayed by a computing device I 00 scrolling to a location
in the list.
As shown in Jania's Figures IA-ID, computing device IOO includes
touch-sensitive display I 02 to display a sub-portion of a list of items. While
a sub-portion I04A of the list is displayed at touch-sensitive display I02, a
multi-touch gesture I 06A is detected, the gesture I 06A signaling to the
computing device to enter a jump scrolling mode and also signaling a
handwritten character 'j." Responsive to the determination that gesture
I06A corresponds to character 'j," the list of contacts is jump-scrolled to
display another list sub-portion I04B including contacts having a first
character of 'j." Jania 2:59---62, 5:30---6:3.
5
Appeal2017-011160
Application I 4/054,0 I 8
Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings regarding Jania.
Particularly, Appellant argues Jania "merely disclose[s] jumping to an item
in a phone list using the letters the user has entered," but "does not disclose a
user marking portions of the phone list, much less marking portions of the
phone list with characters that the user later inputs to navigate those marked
portions." App. Br. 6 (citing Jania Figs. IA-ID). Appellant asserts "Jania
discloses jumping but not marking" because
FIGs. IB-ID of Jania in no way show a user marking a portion
of Jania's phone list with a character and then subsequently
navigating to that portion of the phone list by inputting that
character. Put another way, Jania's FIGs. IB-ID do not show a
scenario in which a user marks a portion of a phone list with a
character, and then later inputs that character again to jump to
the portion of the phone list that has been marked with the
character.
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added); App. Br. 6. 4
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Instead, we find
the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. I 6-I 7. As
such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein.
Id. At the outset, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d I359, I364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
4 Appellant uses Roman numerals for the pages in the Reply Brief. For
clarity, we use the corresponding Arabic numerals.
6
Appeal2017-011160
Application 14/054,018
the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appellant's Specification does not explicitly define the term
"marking." Rather, Appellant's Specification merely provides:
Although the present example is described as navigating to items
of a list that begin with a character upon detection of that
character, it is understood that this is an example. Various kinds
of character input may be utilized to navigate various kinds of
lists in various ways, such as navigating to list items that have a
status associated with the detected character, navigating to items
that a user has marked with the detected character, performing
one or more actions associated with the character on one or more
of the items, and/or any other such character interaction scheme.
Spec. i-f 40 (emphasis added). Appellant's Specification does not describe
that marking (e.g., of a list portion) must occur at an earlier time separated
from the time of navigating/jumping (to the list portion).
Thus, the claimed "navigating to a portion of the at least one list that a
user has marked with the at least one character input" does not require the
"user [to] mark[] a portion of a phone list with a character, and then later
input[] that character again to jump to the portion of the phone list that has
been marked with the character," as Appellant argues. Reply Br. 2
(emphasis added). Rather, the claimed "navigating to a portion of the at
least one list that a user has marked with the at least one character input" is
taught by Jania's jump scrolling to 'T' contacts "responsive to determining"
(and immediately after determining) that user's gesture corresponds to
character "j." Ans. 17. 5 That is, Jania's "user has marked [a contact list
5 We note the claimed "has marked" is in the present perfect tense that "is
used to refer to an action that began in the past and is completed at the time
of speaking" "or continuing in the present." See Merriam-Webster.com,
7
Appeal2017-011160
Application 14/054,018
sub-portion] with at least one character input" as claimed, when the user has
"input[] handwritten character( s ), for example, if [a] gesture is a handwritten
character 'j,' the alphanumeric character may be determined to be the
character 'j' based at least in part on [the] gesture." Ans. 17 (emphasis
added) (citing Jania 5:63---67).
Appellant also argues "[i]f the jumping were interpreted as marking
the entry, Jania would still need to disclose a later navigation to the jumped
entry that was based on the previous jump in order to satisfy the recited
limitations, but Jania discloses no such later navigation based on the
previous jump." App. Br. 6-7 (emphasis added). This argument is not
persuasive because, as discussed supra, the Examiner finds the drawing of a
gesture for an alphanumeric character in Jania, not the resultant jumping,
teaches the claimed marking.
Accordingly, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. As such, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 1, and similarly, independent claim 22 for
which Appellant provides the same arguments, and dependent claims 2-20
argued for their dependency. App. Br. 6-7, 9.
With respect to independent claim 21, Appellant argues Nakajima's
Figure 5G does not disclose "navigating to a portion of the at least one list
that has a status associated with the at least one character." App. Br. 7-8
(citing Nakajima Fig. 5G).
accessed at https://www .merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/the'%20present%
20perfect (last visited March 16, 2018) and httns://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/present%20perfect (last visited March 16, 2018).
8
Appeal2017-011160
Application 14/054,018
Nakajima's Figure 5G is reproduced below with additional markings
for illustration.
I
,12
· :$m::~1
DhPL'\{ .......
Nakajima's Figure 5G illustrates a user interface (UI) 500G for navigating a
list of song names 501.
As shown in Nakajima's Figure 5G, when a contact (e.g., a finger's
contact) in gesture 516 moves further in a direction 517 on vertical index
bar 502, and crosses over from a Japanese sub-element 502-A
(corresponding to Japanese song names) to an English sub-element 502-B
(corresponding to English song names 506), letter "H" (corresponding to the
current position of the contact in gesture 516) is displayed as a temporary
character 518-3, and the list of song names 501 skips to display song names
having letter "H" as the leading character (e.g., song name 506-4).
Nakajima i1i124, 192.
9
Appeal2017-011160
Application 14/054,018
Appellant argues Nakajima's Figure 5G "merely disclose[s] jumping
to an element in a song title list that includes letters entered by a user," but
"[n]one of these songs [of Nakajima] have a status, much less one associated
with characters that the user can then input to navigate to that marked
portion of the list." App. Br. 7-8 (emphasis added) (citing Nakajima Fig.
5G). Appellant asserts that "[a] status is a state at a particular time" and
"[ o ]ne skilled in the art would not understand a permanent characteristic of
[Nakajima's] song (i.e., whether or not the title includes a particular
character) to be a status of the song because the title of the song will always
include that character and will not change over time." App. Br. 8; Reply Br.
4.
We do not agree with Appellant. Rather, we agree with the Examiner
that Appellant's Specification does not explicitly define the term "status"
and does not provide "a definition of 'status [being] a state at a particular
time."' Ans. 17. The Specification merely provides "[ v ]arious kinds of
character input may be utilized to navigate various kinds of lists in various
ways, such as navigating to list items that have a status associated with the
detected character." Spec. i-f 40 (emphasis added).
We also do not agree with Appellant's argument that "the definition
of status as a state at a particular time is the ordinary and plain meaning of
the term status" and "one skilled in the art would understand the term
'status' to be a state at a particular time" but "would not understand a
permanent characteristic ... to be a status of [a] song." Reply Br. 4. Rather,
we find that an ordinary and customary meaning of the word "status"-as
specified by a general dictionary-is a "position or rank in relation to
others" (see Merriam-Webster. com) or a "position or rank of someone or
10
Appeal2017-011160
Application 14/054,018
something when compared to others in a society, organization, group, etc."
(see Merriam-Webster. com). 6
We therefore agree with the Examiner that "the current position of
the contact in gesture 516" on Nakajima's vertical index bar 502 teaches a
status associated with the at least one character (character "H"), as required
by claim 21. Ans. 16-17 (citing Nakajima i-f 192, Fig. 5G). That is,
Nakajima's "system allows [a] user to navigate a song list by moving a
gesture along the index bar to provide character input," thereby navigating to
a portion of the song list (e.g., portion with "song names having 'H' as the
leading character") having a status (a particular position along vertical index
bar 502) associated with character "H." Non-Final Act. 17; Ans. 17.
Accordingly, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 21. As such, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 21.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims
1-22.
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).
6 Merriam-Webster.com, accessed at https://www.merriam-
webster.com/ dictionary/ status (last visited March 16, 2018).
11
Appeal2017-011160
Application 14/054,018
AFFIRMED
12