Ex Parte Griffin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2017

13918642 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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. 13/918,642 06/14/2013 Jason Tyler GRIFFIN 29717-0590004 1537 94149 7590 03/29/2017 Fish & Richardson P.C. (Blackberry) P.O.Box 1022 Minneapolis, MN 55440 EXAMINER TILLERY, RASHAWN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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): patdoctc@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASON TYLER GRIFFIN and JEROME PASQUERO Appeal 2016-008409 Application 13/918,6421 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 18—20 and 22—34. Claims 1—17 and 21 have been canceled. See Prelim. Amend., filed June 14, 2013; Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Blackberry Limited as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-008409 Application 13/918,642 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “receiving predictive text input and [the] generation of a set of characters for electronic devices.” Spec. 11. In particular, when a user is entering text on an electronic device, such as a tablet or cellular phone, embodiments of the claimed invention predict which word a user is entering and offer possible suggestions for completing the word. Spec. Tfl[ 2, 24. Additionally, after a suggested word has been selected, predicted subsequent words and potential affixes may also be suggested and displayed. Spec. 65, 75—76, Figs. 10A, 10B. Claim 18 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'. 18. A method comprising: receiving an input of one or more characters from a virtual keyboard, wherein the virtual keyboard comprises a plurality of character keys and at least some the keys are configured for displaying characters; in response to receiving the input of one or more characters, displaying one or more first predicted words, each of the first predicted words being displayed at one or more first select locations within the virtual keyboard; and in response to receiving an input reflecting selection of one of the first predicted words, displaying two or more predicted sets of characters at two or more second select locations within the virtual keyboard, the two or more predicted sets of characters including at least a subsequent word and an affix for the selected one of the first predicted words, the two or more second select locations being selected using two or more subsequent candidate input characters corresponding to the two or more predicted sets of characters. 2 Appeal 2016-008409 Application 13/918,642 The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 18—20, 23, 25—28, and 30—34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jobs et al. (US 2007/0152979 Al; July 5, 2007) (“Jobs”); Kay et al. (US 2013/0046544 Al; Feb. 21, 2013) (“Kay”); and Baker et al. (US 7,318,019 Bl; Jan. 8, 2008) (“Baker”). Final Act. 2-7. 2. Claims 22, 24, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jobs, Kay, Baker, and Rainisto (US 2006/0265668 Al; Nov. 23, 2006). Final Act. 7-8. Issues on Appeal 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Jobs, Kay, and Baker teaches or suggests “displaying one or more first predicted words” in response to receiving an input of one or more characters, as recited in claim 18? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Jobs, Kay, and Baker teaches or suggests “in response to receiving an input reflecting selection of one of the first predicted words, displaying . . . two or more predicted sets of characters including at least a subsequent word and an affix for the selected one of the first predicted words,” as recited in claim 18? ANALYSIS2 Appellants contend Jobs fails to teach or suggest displaying one or more first predicted words in response to receiving an input of one or more 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed May 26, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed September 8, 2016 3 Appeal 2016-008409 Application 13/918,642 characters, as recited in claim 18. App. Br. 5. In particular, Appellants identify a teaching from Jobs wherein recommended words are displayed in response to a replay condition rather than in response to receiving the input of one or more characters. App. Br. 5 (citing Jobs 125, 129 (sic)). Thus, Appellants argue Jobs, at most, “teaches displaying recommended words in response to [the] deletion of words.” App. Br. 5. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds Jobs teaches displaying one or more first predicted words. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Jobs 78—79, Fig. 12B); Ans. 2. Jobs teaches a word prediction module may suggest words in accordance with a context. Jobs 178. Further, Jobs describes the “context may include one or more previously entered words, characters, and/or symbols.” Jobs 178. Thus, in response to previously entered characters (i.e., the claimed input of one or more characters), Jobs’ word predictor may suggest one or more words. Jobs 178. Additionally, although not relied upon in sustaining the Examiner’s rejection, we note Jobs further describes a text entry process wherein a first and second tray are displayed; the first tray being configured to display the characters entered by the user and the second tray including one or more recommended words. Jobslfl] 120-121, Fig. 10. Additionally, Appellants concede Kay teaches “displaying an affix for an entered text and displaying a predicted word in response to the entered (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 14, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed November 25, 2015, from which this Appeal is taken. 4 Appeal 2016-008409 Application 13/918,642 text, but assert Kay does not teach displaying the predicted word and affix in response to selection of a predicted word. App. Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 1—2. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are not persuaded of Examiner error because Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection and attack the references individually, whereas the Examiner’s rejection relies on the combined teachings of, inter alia, Jobs and Kay. Specifically, the Examiner finds Jobs teaches word prediction in response to receiving an input reflecting selection of one of the first predicted words (Ans. 3 (citing Jobs 78—79, Fig. 12B)) and Kay teaches the predicted words may be at least a word and an affix (Ans. 3 (citing Kay 179)). See also Final Act. 2-4. In reply, Appellants assert: the Examiner has failed to consider the phrase “in response to receiving an input reflecting selection of one of the first predicted words.” At most, the cited combination merely teaches displaying predicted words in response to a context, not in response to selection of one of the first predicted words. Reply Br. 2. Appellants contend Jobs does not disclose the context includes selection of one of the first predicted words. Reply Br. 2. We disagree. As previously recited, Jobs discloses the context may include one or more previously entered words, which we find includes predicted words that have been selected. See Jobs 178. 5 Appeal 2016-008409 Application 13/918,642 For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 18 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 33 and 34, which recite similar limitations and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 6. Additionally, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 20, and 22—32, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 6. DECISION We sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18—20 and 22—34. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6