Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13436065 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/436,065 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