Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 11, 2020

2019001701 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2020)

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.
14/161,048 01/22/2014 Bradley Park Strazisar RPS920130174USNP(710.299) 3609
58127 7590 08/11/2020
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
FLORES, ROBERTO W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRADLEY PARK STRAZISAR, STEVEN RICHARD PERRIN,
SONG WANG and SCOTT EDWARDS KELSO
____________________

Appeal 2019-001701
Application 14/161,0481
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JON M. JURGOVAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–20, constituting all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed January 22, 2014,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed March 27, 2018, the Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed August 27, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed October 23, 2018, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed December
Appeal 2019-001701
Application 14/161,048

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to accepting user handwriting inputs to a note
taking application and associating contextual information related to those
inputs. Spec., Abstract. For example, the context of an audio recording of a
meeting, class or conference may be associated with the content of a user’s
handwritten notes. Spec. ¶¶ 14, 16, 17. Thereafter, the content of the
handwriting inputs is used to search for and retrieve the content of the
contextual information. Spec., Abstract.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are independent. Claims 2–10 depend from
claim 1, and claims 12–19 depend from claim 11. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A method, comprising:
accepting, at a writing input surface of an information
handling device, user handwriting inputs to a note taking
application;
capturing, using a processor, contextual information
accessible by the information handling device that is related to
the user handwriting inputs and is associated with a time of
receipt of the user handwriting input, wherein the capturing
comprises synchronizing the contextual information with the
user handwriting inputs by determining content of the contextual
information is associated with content of the user handwriting
inputs;
creating, using a processor, an association between the
content of the user handwriting inputs and the content of the
contextual information;
thereafter receiving a search query to retrieve content of at
least one handwriting input, wherein the received search query
comprises at least a portion of the content of the contextual
information; and

20, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001701
Application 14/161,048

3
retrieving the content of at least one user handwriting input
based upon accessing the created associations and identifying
content of at least one user handwriting input having an
association with the at least a portion of the content of the
contextual information included in the search query.

Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix).

REJECTION
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bhatnagar
(US 2014/0282030 A1, Sept. 18, 2014) and Edgecomb
(US 2009/0251440 A1, October 8, 2009). Final Act. 3–12.

ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejections
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where present, objective
evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
(1966).
Appeal 2019-001701
Application 14/161,048

4
Independent Claims 1, 11, 20
Appellant argues for patentability of independent claims 1, 11, and 20
together as one group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of
the group and where necessary, will refer only to this claim in our analysis.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Argument Concerning Motivation to Combine References; How the
Combination of References Works and Results in What is Claimed
Appellant argues “the Office has failed to show not only why one of
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Bhatnager[sic] and
Edgecomb, but also how the combination of Bhatnager[sic] and Edgecomb
is supposed to work, and how the combination of Bhatnager[sic] and
Edgecomb would result in the claimed limitations.” Appeal Br. 17–18
(emphases Appellant’s) (citing Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple,
Inc., 848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2016)); Reply Br. 19–20.
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner’s
rejection relies on the combination of Bhatnagar and Edgecomb. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Bhatnagar to teach most limitations of the
claims. Final Act. 3–6 (citing Bhatnagar ¶¶ 188, 313, Fig. 4); Ans. 3.
Specifically, Bhatnagar teaches the following:
In some embodiments, the input can include text and audio. For
example, a student user can type notes during a lecture and record
the lecture. The student user can then upload the student user's
typed notes and the audio recording of the lecture. The audio
recording of the lecture can be converted into text using speech-
to-text algorithms. The phrase identifier 421 can identify key
phrases in both the student user's typed notes and the text
corresponding with the audio. The relationship identifier 451 can
identify relations between all the identified key phrases and the
Appeal 2019-001701
Application 14/161,048

5
output generator 481 can display an output showing all the
identified key phrases and the relations between them.

Bhatnagar ¶ 313. The Examiner further notes that Bhatnagar states “[t]he
course name, course number or the professor name (contextual information)
can be used to search for a textbook (writing input) that the user’s professor
may have assigned for reading.” Final Act. 5; Bhatnagar ¶ 314 (parentheses
indicate the Examiner’s annotations).
The Examiner acknowledges that Bhatnagar does not appear to
specifically disclose handwriting input, but notes that Bhatnagar teaches a
touchscreen display or touchpad similar to Edgecomb’s tablet which can
receive handwriting from a smart pen. Ans. 3 (citing Bhatnagar ¶ 188;
Edgecomb ¶ 17). The Examiner states that Edgecomb, in a related field of
endeavor, teaches recording audio during writing using stylus 100. Id.
(citing Edgecomb ¶ 13, Fig. 4). The Examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Edgecomb’s
handwriting inputs with Bhatnagar’s teachings with the benefit that
handwritten data associated with an audio bookmark would allow retrieval
of the written content and audio data when an audio bookmark is accessed as
Edgecomb suggests. Final Act. 6 (citing Edgecomb, code (57), ¶¶ 13, 22,
39).
From the foregoing, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner
explains sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the
references, and how the resulting combination would work and result in the
claimed invention. Bhatnagar and Edgecomb are in the same field of
endeavor because both teach embodiments where users operate devices to
take lecture notes, as one input, while listening to and recording a lecture, as
Appeal 2019-001701
Application 14/161,048

6
another input, and to record and store the notes and lecture in association
with one another for search and retrieval. See Bhatnagar ¶¶ 4, 313, 314;
Edgecomb ¶¶ 3, 58. Substituting Edgecomb’s handwriting input for
Bhatnagar’s typed input would have been straightforward for a person of
ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“the simple substitution
of one known element for another” is obvious). This is particularly true
when the two references disclose similar devices used for similar purposes
(Bhatnagar’s touch screen display and touchpad (¶ 188) are similar to
Edgecomb’s tablet that senses writing with a smart pen (¶ 17), and these
devices are used for taking notes associated with a recorded lecture).
To sustain a rejection under § 103, “there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006)). From the foregoing observations, it is clear that the
Examiner’s rejection more than meets this standard.
Argument Concerning Temporal Relationship
Appellant argues Bhatnagar only identifies relationships between key
phrases within the inputs, and does not identify a temporal relationship
between two types of input. Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 21. Appellant argues
that Bhatnagar thus fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of
“contextual information . . . that . . . is associated with a time of receipt of
the user handwriting input.” Appeal Br. 19–20; Reply Br. 22.
The Examiner responds to this argument by noting that Bhatnagar
teaches a student user can type notes during the lecture, as well as record the
lecture. Ans. 4 (citing Bhatnagar ¶ 313). The Examiner further explains that
the contextual information (i.e., the recording of the lecture) is associated
Appeal 2019-001701
Application 14/161,048

7
with (occurs during) the time of receipt of the user’s writing input (typing
notes). Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Bhatnagar teaches the argued claim
limitation. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Bhatnagar’s
teaching that the user types notes during a lecture means the user’s typed
input has a temporal relationship to the lecture recording. See Bhatnagar
¶ 313. In other words, the user’s typed notes were received by Bhatnagar’s
device in real time as the lecture was being recorded.
In addition, Edgecomb teaches that its audio bookmark, which may be
a written word or symbol, when selected, jumps to the temporal location in
the audio data associated with the audio bookmark, and displays the user’s
written notes that are related to the temporal location. Edgecomb ¶¶ 39, 40.
Considering these teachings, a person of ordinary skill would have
recognized that one way to create the association between Edgecomb’s
written notes and the lecture’s audio data would be that the written notes
were input to a device at the same time that the lecture’s audio data was
being recorded so that they are temporally related.
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive to show any error
in the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the combination of Bhatnagar
and Edgecomb teaches the argued claim limitation.
Argument Concerning Search Query
Appellant argues that “the claims provide for a contextual information
search query that returns a handwriting input associated with that contextual
information search query, see Claim 1, not a search query that retrieves
Appeal 2019-001701
Application 14/161,048

8
additional secondary sources, as in Bhatnager[sic].” Appeal Br. 20–21;
Reply Br. 22–23.
To the extent that Appellant argues that the Bhatnagar’s “additional
information” (¶ 310) and Edgecomb’s “additional content” (¶ 40) are not
equivalent to handwriting inputs, the word “additional” does not change the
character of the handwriting inputs taught by the combination of Edgecomb
and Bhatnagar as equivalent to the handwriting inputs claimed.
In any case, the Examiner responds that Bhatnagar teaches “that the
course name, the course number or the professor name (contextual
information) can be used to search for a textbook (writing input) that the
user’s professor may have assigned for reading.” Ans. 5 (citing Bhatnagar
¶ 314) (emphasis added). The Examiner also notes that Edgecomb teaches
user selection of an audio bookmark using a smart pen to write a word or
symbol, which causes the device to jump to a specific temporal location in
the audio data, and which results in the display of additional information,
including handwritten notes, which are associated with this temporal
location in the audio data. Id. (citing Edgecomb ¶¶ 39, 40). The Examiner
concludes that the combination of Bhatnagar and Edgecomb teaches the
search query limitation. Ans. 5–6.
The Examiner’s findings show sufficiently that the argued claim
limitation is taught, or at least suggested, by the combination of Bhatnagar
and Edgecomb. Final Act. 3–6. Specifically, as the Examiner notes,
Bhatnagar states the following:
The course name, the course number or the professor name can
be used to search for a textbook that the user's professor may
have assigned for reading.
Appeal 2019-001701
Application 14/161,048

9
Bhatnagar ¶ 314 (emphasis added). Further, Edgecomb teaches the
following:
In an embodiment, additional content, such as written notes or
other handwriting data, are also associated with an audio
bookmark, allowing retrieval of the written content and audio
data when an audio bookmark is accessed. Hence, the audio
bookmark allows a user to access a specific temporal location in
the audio data and also to access additional content, such as
written notes or other data, related to the specific temporal
location in the audio data.
Edgecomb ¶ 39. Edgecomb thus teaches that accessing the audio bookmark
retrieves associated audio data and written notes. Edgecomb further teaches
the user selects an audio bookmarking using the smart pen 100
by accessing a portion of the writing surface 50, such as a written
word or symbol or a control area. The smart pen then
communicates the audio bookmark selection to the computing
device 120. The audio data then jumps to the temporal location
associated with the selected audio bookmark, begins playing the
audio data starting at the time associated with the selected
bookmark and may also display additional content, such as a
user's written notes, associated with the temporal location in the
audio data associated with the audio bookmark.
Edgecomb ¶ 40. Thus, Edgecomb teaches that the user may select an audio
bookmarking that is a written word or symbol, which causes the audio data
to jump to the temporal location associated with the selected bookmark, and
may also cause display of the user’s written notes. Accordingly,
Edgecomb’s word or symbol that is used to invoke the audio bookmarking
may be viewed as “contextual information” to search for a textbook
(Bhatnagar); audio data (Bhatnagar and Edgecomb); and associated written
notes (Edgecomb). In this regard, we note that the Specification (¶ 18)
describes “contextual information” broadly, and the Examiner is obligated to
Appeal 2019-001701
Application 14/161,048

10
give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination. See
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Edgecomb’s written notes may be viewed as the claimed “handwriting
input.”
Accordingly, the combination of Bhatnagar and Edgecomb teach the
argued claim limitation, and Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that
the Examiner errs in finding that the combination of Bhatnagar and
Edgecomb teaches or suggests all limitations of independent claims 1, 11,
and 20.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims
for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from which
they depend. See Final Act. 6–12; 37 C.F.R. § 31.47(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
affirmed.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Bhatnagar,
Edgecomb
1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED