Ex Parte Clow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 2012

10436232 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

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. 10/436,232 05/13/2003 Joshua Clow 302550.01/MFCP.155698 2024 45809 7590 12/19/2012 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 2555 GRAND BOULEVARD KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613 EXAMINER PHAM, LINH K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2012 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 JOSHUA CLOW, RAVIPAL SOIN, ROBERT A. DAIN, MICHAEL S. KAPLAN, and WEI WU ____________ Appeal 2009-012970 Application 10/436,232 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 5, 7, 20-22, 33, 35, 46, and 49-51 (App. Br. 2).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants note on page 2 of the Appeal Brief that claims 5, 7, 20, 22, 33, 35, 46, and 49 are on appeal. However, since claims 5, 7, 20-22, 33, 35, 46, and 49-51 were rejected by the Examiner, are listed in the Claim Appendix, and were not canceled, claims 5, 7, 20-22, 33, 35, 46, and 49-51 are before us on appeal. Appeal 2009-012970 Application 10/436, 232 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to systems, methods, and computer readable media allowing multiple language input to various application programs and/or threads active on a computer system (Spec. ¶ [01]). Independent claim 5, reproduced below, is illustrative. 5. A method for rendering a soft keyboard, comprising: determining a first input language associated with a first application program accepting input through a computer; rendering a soft keyboard on a display of the computer, wherein the soft keyboard is configured based, at least in part, on the first input language; switching from the first application program to a second application program that is different from the first application program, in response to input from a user; determining a second input language associated with the second application program; and when the second input language differs from the first input language, automatically rendering a new soft keyboard on the display of the computer, wherein the new soft keyboard is configured based, at least in part, on the second input language, wherein the first and second input languages have been previously associated with the first and second application programs, respectively, based on input languages selected by the user, wherein the soft keyboard rendered on the display is configured based, at least in part, on a physical Appeal 2009-012970 Application 10/436, 232 3 keyboard driver previously used on the computer for the determined input language. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated based upon the teachings of Nakasato (U.S. Patent No. 6,182,099 B1, issued Jan. 30, 2001 (filed Feb. 26, 1998)) (Ans. 3). The Examiner rejected claims 5, 7, 20-22, 33, 35, 49, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable based upon the teachings of Zhang (U.S. Patent No.6,809,725 B1, issued Oct. 26, 2004 (filed May 25, 2000)), Kang (U.S. Patent No. 7,168,046 B2, issued Jan. 23, 2007 (filed Apr. 25, 2002)), and Yang (U.S. Patent No. 6,562,078 B1, issued May 13, 2003 (filed June 29, 1999)) (Ans. 3-8). The Examiner rejected claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable based upon the teachings of Zhang, Kang, Yang, and Nakasato (Ans. 9). ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 The Examiner finds Nakasato teaches all the features of Appellants’ claimed invention referring to column 13, lines 5-50 of Nakasato (Ans. 3). Appellants contend Nakasato does not teach “maintaining a first recognizer and switching the language of a graphical user interface in response to a determination that no recognizer is associated with the language of the change” (App. Br. 9). Appellants further contend Nakasato does not disclose determining when a language of change does not have an associated recognizer; rather Nakasato determines if an application is in Appeal 2009-012970 Application 10/436, 232 4 English and then analyzes the format and font of the input to determine which language should be set as the language information, which is not the same as making a determination as to whether a recognizer is associated with the language of change, as claimed (Nakasato, col. 9, l. 62-col. 10, l. 33; App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3-4). We agree with Appellants that Nakasato does not teach this claim limitation. Thus, as Nakasato does not teach all the elements of Appellants’ claimed invention, Nakasato does not anticipate claim 46. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds Zhang teaches all the elements of claims 5, 7, and 49 except for an “input language based on application programs or rendering soft keyboard based on input language” (Ans. 4). However, the Examiner finds Kang and Yang teach a soft keyboard configured based on the input language determined for a first application program (Ans. 4-5). Further, the Examiner finds Kang teaches this limitation because when a language is switched, only a “Data Zone is changed while the drivers for system remain in the Program Zone. (see Kang, fig. 4, col. 40-50),” the drivers including a physical touch pad driver (Ans. 10). The Examiner also finds Yang teaches characters indicate the tone of the speech and thus recognizes a user’s speech through the characters, teaching “selecting a speech recognizer based, at least in part, on the input language determined for the first application program” (claim 7) (Ans. 10). Appellants contend Kang fails to “teach a ‘physical keyboard driver’ for driving a physical keyboard, much less a physical keyboard previously used on the computer for the determined input language” (Reply Br. 4-5). Appellants then assert there is no indication in Kang that its soft keyboard is Appeal 2009-012970 Application 10/436, 232 5 in anyway configured based on a physical keyboard driver or a driver previously used on the computer for the input language (Ans. 10). We agree. We find the weight of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 and 49. Appellants contend Yang recognizes an input via phonetic-based characters, and does not teach or suggest the sounds or tones are “speech.” Rather, “Yang merely determines which language character is most likely the character intended by the user based on the direct input of predetermined phonetic archetypes” (Reply Br. 6). We agree with Appellants and find the weight of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. The remaining claims recite similar limitations or are dependent claims. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.2 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5, 7, 20-22, 33, 35, 46, and 49-51 is reversed. REVERSED tkl 2 It is noted claim 21 depends from cancelled claim 18. Appellants should correct this error.