MYSCRIPT

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 17, 2021

2019006931 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2021)

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.
14/786,819 10/23/2015 Edgard BAUDRY 0177.0071 1029
113169 7590 05/17/2021
MH2 Technology Law Grp
(w/ Cabinet Beau de Lomenie)
1951 Kidwell Drive
Suite 310
Tysons Corner, VA 22182
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MAIKHANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2021 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):
docketing@mh2law.com
khicks@mh2law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDGARD BAUDRY, DENIS MANCEAU, ROBIN MELINAND,
ARNOUD BOEKHOORN, and NICOLAS TORNERI
____________

Appeal 2019-006931
Application 14/786,819
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 35–47 and 49–51, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Myscript as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.

Appeal 2019-006931
Application 14/786,819

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “converting the graphics objects into
strings of symbols by using a system for providing permanent
synchronization, also referred to as ‘persistent’ synchronization.” Spec. ¶ 1.
The invention proposes a device (2) for inputting
symbols in an entry field (30), the device comprising an
interface unit having a touch screen (18) and a module for
processing graphics objects, the module comprising:
· a detection unit for detecting a start and an end of a
current graphics object (OGl) being input;
· a storage unit for storing graphics data corresponding to
the input graphics object (OGl);
· a recognition unit for generating a list (LCl) of
candidate strings (Cll-C14) of symbols from the graphics data,
each candidate string (Cll-Cl4) being associated with a
pertinence value; and
· an insertion unit for inserting into the entry field (30) a
string (CSl) selected by the user from the list, a data group
comprising the graphics data, the candidate strings (Cll-C14),
the pertinence values, and an identifier of the selected string
(CSl) being stored during a predetermined duration.

Spec., Abstr. Claim 35 is exemplary:
35. A device suitable for being used by a user to input symbols into
an entry field, the device comprising:
a memory including instructions;
a touch screen that displays, in an input zone of the touchscreen, a
current graphics object that is input manually; and
a processor, operably connected to the memory and the touch screen,
that executes the instructions to perform operations comprising:
Appeal 2019-006931
Application 14/786,819

3
detecting a start of input and an end of input of said current
graphics object in said input zone;
storing, upon detecting the start of input of said current graphics
object, graphics data corresponding to said current graphics object
throughout the time that the current graphics object is being input;
generating, from said graphics data, candidate strings, each
having at least one symbol, each of said candidate strings being
associated with a pertinence value representative of the pertinence of
said candidate string relative to said graphics data;
inserting, into said entry field, a string selected from said
candidate strings as a function of their pertinence;
storing, in association with said graphics data, said candidate
strings and their associated pertinence values, together with an
identifier of the selected string, said association forming a first data
group;
conserving said first data group in the memory for a first
predetermined duration;
accepting editing input from the user to edit a string being
displayed in the entry field; and
modifying and storing the data group of said edited string.

Appeal 2019-006931
Application 14/786,819

4
References and Rejection2

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
35–47, 49–51 103 Webb (US 2009 /0087095 Al, pub. Apr. 2, 2009)
Kuriyama (US 5,838,302, pat. Nov. 17, 1998)

ANALYSIS3
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of
Webb and Kuriyama collectively teach
generating, from said graphics data, candidate strings,
each having at least one symbol, each of said candidate strings
being associated with a pertinence value representative of the
pertinence of said candidate string relative to said graphics data;
inserting, into said entry field, a string selected from said
candidate strings as a function of their pertinence;

as recited in independent claim 35. See Appeal Br. 14–17; Reply Br. 5–8.
Claim 35 focuses on inputting a graphics object (such as handwriting
hello); generating candidate strings from such graphics objects (such as
hello, hell, hallo, hall), each candidate string is associated with a pertinence
value representing how pertinent the candidate string is relative to the

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated
September 7, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated April 5, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated July 23, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
(4) Reply Brief dated September 23, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments.
Appeal 2019-006931
Application 14/786,819

5
graphics objects (such as PN11-PN14); inserting a string selected from the
candidate strings as a function of the pertinence (inserting hello, which is
selected from hello, hell, hallo, hall, based on the pertinence value); and
storing, in association with the graphics data (such as the handwriting hello),
the candidate strings (such as hello, hell, hallo, hall) and their associated
pertinence values (such as PN11–PN14), together with an identifier of the
selected string (such as an identifier for the selected hello). See claim 35. In
contrast, each of Webb and Kuriyama describes generating one string—not
multiple candidate strings, among which one string is selected based on
pertinence—from the inputted handwriting:
[a] . . . method for a touch screen user interface for a computer
system. A first touchscreen area is provided for accepting text input
strokes. A second touchscreen area is provided for displaying
recognized text from the text input strokes. The text input strokes are
displayed in the first touchscreen area. The text input strokes are
recognized and the resulting recognized text is displayed in the second
touchscreen area.
Webb, Abstr.
When handwritten data is input by manipulating a handwriting
board P displayed in the input area 14a, coordinate data
corresponding to the locus of the input handwritten data is
stored in the real data memory, and data on its attribute, pointer
and data length is stored as management data.
Kuriyama, Abstr.
Because the invention differs significantly from Webb’s and
Kuriyama’s teachings, the Examiner’s mappings appear to be problematic.
In particular, the Examiner cites Webb’s Abstract, paragraphs 45 and 50,
and Kuriyama’s Abstract, paragraphs 2–7 for teaching the disputed
limitations. Final Act. 5–7. The Examiner reasons:
Appeal 2019-006931
Application 14/786,819

6
It would have been obvious . . . to combine the teachings of
Webb and Kuriyama for purposes such as more distinctly
understanding known methods associated with receiving use
input at touchscreen devices. Webb already calls for receiving
user input at touchscreen devices including user input strokes.
Kuriyama more distinctly describes known methods associated
with receiving the same type of user input at touchscreen
devices. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
readily prompted to look to Kuriyama from Webb for this
additional/distinct understanding.

Final Act. 9–10.
We have reviewed the cited prior art portions, and it is unclear
how Webb and Kuriyama teach or suggest:
generating, from said graphics data, candidate strings,
each having at least one symbol, each of said candidate strings
being associated with a pertinence value representative of the
pertinence of said candidate string relative to said graphics data;
inserting, into said entry field, a string selected from said
candidate strings as a function of their pertinence;

as required by claim 35. Our assessment is consistent with our
understanding of the references: as discussed above, each of Webb and
Kuriyama describes generating one string—not multiple candidate strings,
among which one string is selected based on pertinence—from the inputted
handwriting. Further, according to the Examiner, Kuriyama merely provides
more details to the known method employed by Web. See Final Act. 9
(“Webb already calls for receiving user input at touchscreen devices
including user input strokes. Kuriyama more distinctly describes known
methods associated with receiving the same type of user input at touchscreen
devices.”). As a result, it is unclear how Webb and Kuriyama, either alone
or collectively, teach or suggest the disputed limitations.
Appeal 2019-006931
Application 14/786,819

7
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner repeatedly cites
case law and asserts Appellant is attacking references individually. See Ans.
6–10. The Examiner does not adequately clarify the mappings, and does not
persuasively explain why the combination teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 35.

Regarding independent claim 47, Examiner cites Kuriyama for
teaching
generating candidate strings of at least one symbol from said
graphics data, each of said candidate strings being associated
with a pertinence value representative of the pertinence of said
candidate string relative to said graphics data;

inserting, in said entry field, a string selected from among said
candidate strings as a function of the pertinence value of the
string that was selected.

See Final Act. 23–24. For similar reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 35, the Examiner has not shown Kuriyama teaches or suggests the
above limitations. Therefore, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 47.

Regarding independent claim 49, it is unclear how the Examiner maps
the following limitations, as the Examiner does not explain whether the
mappings are similar to the mappings of claim 35 or 47:
Appeal 2019-006931
Application 14/786,819

8
generating candidate strings of at least one symbol from the
graphics data, each of the candidate strings being associated
with a pertinence value representative of the pertinence of the
candidate string relative to the graphics data;

inserting, in an entry field displayed by the touch screen, a
string selected from among the candidate strings as a function
of the pertinence value of the string that was selected.

In any event, as discussed above, the Examiner fails to provide
sufficient evidence or explanation to show the cited prior art teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claims 35 and 47, which are
substantively similar to the above limitations. Therefore, for similar reasons,
we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 49.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 36–46, 50, and 51.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 35–47 and 49–51
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
35–47, 49–
51
103 Webb,
Kuriyama
35–47, 49–51

REVERSED