Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

12220875 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

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.
12/220,875 07/29/2008 Kwang Won Lee YPF200802-0051/US
(SAMS 07
8520
23990 7590 12/01/2016
DOPKF.T n FR K
EXAMINER
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DAT!.AS, TX 75380
HAMMONDS, MARCUS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2016 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):
patents @ munckwilson. com
munckwilson @ gmail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KWANG WON LEE
Appeal 2015-000283
Application 12/220,875
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 23, 25, 30, 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 46, 58, 59, 61—64,
66—68, and 70—82, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-000283
Application 12/220,875
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed “to a mobile communication
terminal having a touch screen that can interrupt or activate touch functions
of the touch screen as key patterns are input” and “for locking and unlocking
the mobile communication terminal” (Spec. 12).
Independent claim 23, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
23. An unlocking method of a mobile communication
terminal having a touch screen, the method comprising:
displaying a key pattern input screen for inputting patterns
used for an unlocking key pattern;
receiving a user-defined shape that is inputted on the key
pattern input screen by a user, the user-defined shape defined by
the usef’s dragging motion on the key pattern input screen;
registering the received user-defined shape as the
unlocking key pattern that allows the mobile communication
terminal to enter an unlocked mode; and
while the mobile communication terminal is in a locked
mode, in response to a user’s dragging motion on the key pattern
input screen of the touch screen, entering the unlocked mode
when an input pattern inputted through the key pattern input
screen of the touch screen is the registered unlocking key pattern
and performing at least one of a plurality of functions according
to the input pattern when the input pattern is not registered as the
unlocking key pattern.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 23, 31, 39, 58, 62, and 67 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.
2
Appeal 2015-000283
Application 12/220,875
The Examiner rejected claims 23, 25, 31, 33, 39, 41, 58, 62, 63, 64,
67, 68, and 77—82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of
Chrysochoos (US 2005/0003851 Al; Jan. 6, 2005), Touch Pad
Authentication (“Touch Pad”), Linjama (US 2008/0229255 Al; Sept. 18,
2008), and Chaudhri (US 2007/0150842 Al; June 28, 2007).1
The Examiner rejected claims 30, 38, 46, 61, 66, and 70 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Chrysochoos, Touch Pad,
Linjama, Chaudhri, and Ho (US 2006/0294377 Al; Dec. 28, 2006).
The Examiner rejected claims 71—76 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Chrysochoos, Touch Pad, Linjama, Chaudhri, Ho, and
Beeck (US 2008/0178126 Al; July 24, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner finds the limitation “performing at least one of a
plurality of functions according to the input pattern when the input pattern is
not registered as the unlocking key pattern,” recited in claim 23, and
similarly in claims 31, 39, 58, 62, and 67, is not supported by Appellant’s
Specification.
Appellant contends paragraphs 30 and 43 and Figure 4, all support
this limitation (App. Br.16—18). Particularly, paragraph 43 recites ‘the
corresponding function when the mobile communication terminal 10 enters
an unlocking mode means a case where patterns other than a locking key
1 The Examiner did not recite Linjama in the heading of the rejection, but
did rely on Linjama in rejecting the claims (Final Act. 6—8). We consider
this oversight harmless error.
3
Appeal 2015-000283
Application 12/220,875
pattern are input through the touch screen 13, i.q., functions according to
input patterns are performed” (emphasis added). The Examiner finds
paragraph 43 “vaguely describes performing a corresponding function” and
fails to explain “a plurality of functions” as claimed (Final Act. 4; Ans. 3).
We do not agree.
We agree with Appellant in that once an unlocking mode is entered
functions are entered according to the input patterns entered. Therefore, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 31, 39, 58, 62, and 67
under 35 U.S.C. §112, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds Chrysochoos discloses all the limitations of the
independent claims except for explicitly disclosing a user-defined shape
input by a user and performing a plurality of functions according to a gesture
when the gesture inputted is not an unlocking gesture (Ans. 4—5). The
Examiner relies on Touch Pad, Linjama, and Chaudhri for disclosing these
limitations (Ans. 5—6).
Appellant contends the Examiner is picking and choosing “from any
one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the
exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such
reference fairly suggest. . .” (App. Br. 37.) However, Appellant fails to
address the embodiment disclosed in paragraph 54 of Linjama relied on by
the Examiner as teaching performing predefined gestures while an input
device is in a locked state, the functions corresponding to the predefined
gestures performed without unlocking (Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 5—6). Appellant
further contends Chrysochoos does not mention performing this limitation
4
Appeal 2015-000283
Application 12/220,875
(App. Br. 37) and asserts none of the references disclose the claimed
limitations. Appellant, however, has merely recited the claim limitations
without providing evidence or argument as to why they are not present in the
cited references and why the combination is improper (App. Br. 37—38).
Appellant is improperly arguing the references separately and not the
combination of references.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans. 9—
12). The Examiner has made reasonable findings, which Appellant has not
persuasively rebutted. Therefore, we find the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 23, 25, 31, 33, 39, 41, 58, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, and 77—82 as
obvious over of Chrysochoos, Touch Pad, Linjama, and Chaudhri, and
claims 30, 38, 46, 61, 66, and 70 dependent from independent claims 23, 31,
39, 58, 62, and 67 and argued therewith (App. Br. 38).
Appellant separately argues claims 71—76, contending Beeck does not
disclose a window showing a plurality of exemplary patterns for unlocking a
key pattern on a touch screen when a key pattern registering mode is
selected, as claimed (App. Br. 39).
The Examiner relies on Beeck for the limitation “showing a plurality
of exemplary patterns which may be used” and relies on Chrysochoos,
Touch Pad, and Linjama for disclosing “a user defined input gesture,” as set
forth supra (Ans. 12—13).
Beeck discloses a tutorial presented to the user for “teaching or
educating the user on numerous types of gestures. As such, a visual
representation of a gesture example may be presented to the user,” thus
providing exemplary patterns that may be used for unlocking the touch
screen (Beeck Abstract; || 6, 7; Ans. 12—13).
5
Appeal 2015-000283
Application 12/220,875
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and sustain the
rejection of claims 71—76 as obvious over the cited references.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23, 31, 39, 58, 62, and 67
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23, 25, 30, 31, 33, 38, 39,
41, 46, 58, 59, 61—64, 66—68, and 70-82 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
6