Ex Parte Park et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201713436065 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/436,065 03/30/2012 Sung Wook PARK 0203-1934 7832 68103 7590 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER AZARI, SEPEHR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2699 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2017 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): u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUNG WOOK PARK, SE HWAN PARK, JI HOON KIM, and JI HOON LEE Appeal 2015-008288 Application 13/436,065 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—22, which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed March 2, 2015 (“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed September 16, 2015 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 16, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action mailed October 2, 2014 (“Final Act”). 2 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2015-008288 Application 13/436,065 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 8, 15, 16, and 19 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below (with disputed limitations in italics): 1. A method for providing a character input interface in a terminal having a touchscreen, the method comprising: simultaneously displaying a first keyboard on a first region of a screen and a second keyboard including second keyboard language selection keys on a second region of the screen by the touchscreen in a character inputting mode; and changing a language of the second keyboard to a language corresponding to a second touched keyboard language selection key touched while maintaining a language of the first keyboard when an input is received by touching the second keyboard language key, wherein the first keyboard and the second keyboard are displayed side by side, and wherein inputs through the first keyboard and the second keyboard are displayed on a same region of the screen together. References Chang et al. US 2005/0089226 A1 Mishra US 2009/0189865 Al Zivkovic et al. US 2012/0310622 Al Apr. 28, 2005 July 30, 2009 Dec. 6, 2012 2 Appeal 2015-008288 Application 13/436,065 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 14—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zivkovic and Mishra. Final Act. 3—11. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zivkovic, Mishra, and Chang. Final Act. 11— 15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner erred. See App. Br. 6—13; Reply Br. 1—5. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. The Examiner finds Zivkovic teaches all limitations of claim 1 except for the requirement that “the first keyboard and the second keyboard are displayed side by side.” Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner finds Mishra teaches displaying keyboards configured for inputting different languages side by side. Final Act. 4 (citing Mishra, Fig. 2). We agree with this finding because Figure 2 depicts keyboards 24 and 25 placed side by side. Mishra discloses: “FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an enlarged view of flexible user input device 20 of FIG. 1. In FIG. 2, keyboard interface representation 24 is configured with Chinese alphanumeric symbols (e.g., pin-ying), keyboard interface representation 25 is configured with Hindi alphanumeric symbols (e.g., devanagari). . . .” Mishra 110. In rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Zivkovic and Mishra, the Examiner concludes: 3 Appeal 2015-008288 Application 13/436,065 It would have been obvious, therefore, to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to simply combine the teachings of Zivkovic and Mishra in order to change the placement of the keyboards from facing each other as taught by Zivkovic to being placed side by side as taught by Mishra. One would be motivated to make such a combination since Zivkovic and Mishra both aim at providing users with multiple configurable keyboards capable of inputting different languages. Final Act. 4. Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Zivkovic and Mishra as set forth in the rejection because “Zivkovic clearly concerns itself with providing a tablet that is configured to allow two users that are facing one another to communicate with one another using keyboards that are positioned on opposite sides of the tablet.” App. Br. 10 (citing Zivkovic Fig. 2); Reply Br. 3. Based on Appellants’ asserted premise that Zivkovic requires users to face one another, Appellants argue that placing the keyboards side by side would change the principle of operation of Zivkovic and render Zivkovic unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 4—5. These arguments are not persuasive. Although the configuration of Figure 2 of Zivkovic may be employed where users are facing each other, Zivkovic clearly contemplates situations where users are not facing each other. For example, Zivkovic discloses: If the users are facing each other, the first user may quite naturally tilt the device away from him so that it is now inclined the other way for viewing by the other user. . . . Other movements can be used as well such as shaking, passing left or right, or any other action that can be determined through the device accelerometers, gyros or other sensors. 4 Appeal 2015-008288 Application 13/436,065 Zivkovic 135. Zivkovic’s conditional statement addressing “[i]f the users are facing each other” demonstrates that the reference contemplates a situation in which the users are not facing each other, and its disclosure of “passing [the device] left or right” suggests that users would be sitting side by side. See Zivkovic 135. Additionally, Appellants assert that modifying the tablet in Zivkovic to arrange the keyboards side by side would require substantial reconstruction and redesign. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants argue that such modification would require a change in the orientation of the display corresponding to the repositioned keyboard to be right side up. App. Br. 10 (citing Zivkovic Fig. 2); Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by these arguments. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that repositioning the keyboards in the Zivkovic tablet would not require substantial reconstruction and redesign. Ans. 2—3. The prior art of record demonstrates that repositioning information, including keyboards, on a touchscreen was well known in the art. See, e.g., Mishra 17 (“User input interface representations 22 are interactive images and/or content which are generated and graphically represented on display member 21 of flexible user input device 20 (e.g., a keyboard interface representation, a touch pad interface representation, a tablet interface representation, a writing pad interface representation, etc.).”); Mishra 125 (“In some embodiments, optimization module 67 dynamically recalculates and/or determines a new layout for presenting each of user input interface representations 22 on display member 21 in response to a user selecting to reposition and/or select a different one or more of the user input interface representations.”). Appellants’ arguments constitute little more than attorney argument and a 5 Appeal 2015-008288 Application 13/436,065 conclusory statement unsupported by factual evidence. Consequently we afford Appellants’ argument little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). Appellants also argue that there would be insufficient room for the two users to use the keyboards in a comfortable manner. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. This argument is not persuasive because the relative sizes of the keyboards and the displays are not recited in claim 1 and because, as the Examiner correctly finds, “[t]he teachings of Zivkovic are not limited by size.” Ans. 4. Appellants contend the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight because the side by side orientation of the keyboards is inconsistent with the teachings of Zivkovic. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 5. We do not find this argument persuasive of error. First, as discussed above, Appellants’ contention that a side by side orientation is inconsistent with Zivkovic is based on the incorrect premise that users of the device in Zivkovic must face each other. Second, we agree with the Examiner that the conclusion of obviousness is based only on the teachings of Zivkovic and Mishra, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 3. In particular, Mishra demonstrates that displaying two keyboards side by side on a touchscreen was well known in the art and well within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Mishra 110, Fig. 2. As such, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness based on the combined teachings of Zivkovic and Mishra. Combining the teachings of Zivkovic and Mishra as set forth by the Examiner would have predictably used prior art elements according to their 6 Appeal 2015-008288 Application 13/436,065 established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellants do not present evidence that the resulting arrangements were “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). We are not persuaded of Examiner error, and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 4, 7, 8, 11, and 14—22, for which additional persuasive arguments have not been presented. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5. We additionally sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13, for which no additional persuasive arguments have been presented. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s 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). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation