Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2020006176 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2022)

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. 15/133,282 04/20/2016 Dong Ho Kim GGL-2191 5648 100462 7590 03/23/2022 Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602 EXAMINER KLICOS, NICHOLAS GEORGE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2145 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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): usdocketing@dority-manning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DONG HO KIM ____________ Appeal 2020-006176 Application 15/133,282 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20-28. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006176 Application 15/133,282 2 The present invention relates generally to providing an updated graphical keyboard including both an iconographic search key associated with iconographic search functions and one or more keys for inputting alphanumeric characters. See Spec. Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A method comprising: outputting, by a computing device, for display, an application graphical user interface comprising an edit region and a graphical keyboard comprising a plurality of keys, wherein the plurality of keys includes an iconographic search key associated with an iconographic search function of the graphical keyboard and one or more keys for inputting alphanumeric characters, and wherein the edit region is continuously displayed while the graphical keyboard is displayed; responsive to receiving an indication of a selection of the iconographic search key, outputting, by the computing device, for display, a first updated graphical keyboard that includes, in addition to the one or more keys for inputting alphanumeric characters, an iconographic search box configured to display indications of search queries associated with the iconographic search function; determining, by the computing device, based on user input of one or more alphanumeric characters using the first updated graphical keyboard, an iconographic search query; outputting, by the computing device, for display within the iconographic search box, a graphical indication of the iconographic search query; identifying, by the computing device, based on the iconographic search query and using the iconographic search function of the graphical keyboard, one or more candidate iconographic symbols; and responsive to identifying the one or more candidate iconographic symbols, outputting, by the computing device, for display, a second updated graphical keyboard that includes, in Appeal 2020-006176 Application 15/133,282 3 addition to the one or more keys for inputting alphanumeric characters, an iconographic suggestion region displaying one or more selectable elements corresponding to the one or more candidate iconographic symbols, wherein the second updated graphical keyboard is output for display with a size that is greater than a corresponding size of the graphical keyboard and a corresponding size of the first updated graphical keyboard to accommodate the one or more selectable elements corresponding to the one or more candidate iconographic symbols being displayed in the iconographic suggestion region. REFERENCES The references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Grieves US 2015/0100537 A1 Apr. 9, 2015 Huang US 2017/0083524 A1 Mar. 23, 2017 REJECTION Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Huang and Grieves. Final Act. 4-10. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Appellant contends that “neither of Huang’s FIG. 8D nor 8E (nor any other figure of description in Huang) shows the claimed ‘a second updated graphical keyboard that includes, in addition to the one or more keys for inputting alphanumeric characters, an iconographic suggestion region.” Appeal 2020-006176 Application 15/133,282 4 Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). Appellant emphasizes that “not a single one of Huang’s FIGS. 8A-8F . . . actually shows ‘one or more keys for inputting alphanumeric characters’” (id.), and “to the extent Huang can be interpreted as displaying theses elements at all, such elements are displayed in alternative to each other, not ‘in addition’ as claimed.” Id. at 10. Appellant further contends that “Grieves fails to cure this deficiency of Huang.” Id. at 11. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Appellant appears to be presenting a piecemeal analysis of the references while casually brushing aside the combination of [] Huang and Grieves.” Ans. 4. The Examiner points out the “Examiner [admitted] that Huang does not explicitly teach the layout of the claimed language, and that Grieves allows for the activation of emoji results by typing words on a traditional graphical keyboard.” Id., citing Final Act. 6-7. Thus, Appellant erroneously concludes that Grieves “has not been cited for such a purpose” (see Appeal Br. 11), when in fact the Examiner is relying on Grieves to teach displaying emoji suggestions along with text input. Here, the Examiner finds that “Grieves clearly shows the more traditional keyboard and how the emoji suggestions can be above keyboard layout.” Ans. 4, citing Grieves ¶¶ 34-36. For example, Grieves discloses “a language model that is configured to consider emoji along with words and phrases” by enabling “a text prediction engine to offer the emoji as alternatives for matching words.” Grieves Abstr. Additionally, in Grieves, “a text prediction bar 308 [] appears at the top of the keyboard . . . [and] the prediction options include both words 130 and emoji 132.” Grieves ¶ 35; see also Fig. 3. Also, in Grieves, “if the user selects the house emoji option Appeal 2020-006176 Application 15/133,282 5 by touch . . . the input text in the search input box may automatically be completed by inserting the house emoji.” Id. at ¶ 36. In other words, Grieves displays a keyboard including alphanumeric characters, and at the same time, an emoji suggestion region above the keyboard. Appellant fails to rebut the aforementioned findings in Grieves. Instead, Appellant merely recites the claim language and makes general allegations that Grieves does not teach the language of the claims. See Appeal Br. 11. However, a statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We note that arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Thus, Appellant’s argument against Huang separately from Grieves does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425- 26 (CCPA 1981). As for Appellant’s arguments regarding the “advantages” of the claimed invention (see Appeal Br. 11-12), we note that to be relevant, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We find that the argued “a user may continue to refine the iconographic search query” and “without having to switch between entry modes” are not recited Appeal 2020-006176 Application 15/133,282 6 in claim 1. Thus, such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 and are therefore unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 12 and 18 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims, but is essentially relying on the arguments presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7-13. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20-28. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20- 28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20-28 103 Huang, Grieves 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20-28 No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED