Nicholas Zambetti et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 30, 2019

14833014 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2019)

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.
14/833,014 08/21/2015 Nicholas ZAMBETTI P22139US1/77770000342101 5886
150004 7590 10/30/2019
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
4655 Executive Dr
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
EXAMINER
REPSHER III, JOHN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2019 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):
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NICHOLAS ZAMBETTI, JONATHAN R. DASCOLA, IMRAN
CHAUDHRI, ANTON M. DAVYDOV, JONATHAN P. IVE,
STEPHEN O. LEMAY, KEVIN LYNCH, BAS ORDING, WAN SI WAN,
and LAWRENCE Y. YANG
____________

Appeal 2018-002410
Application 14/833,014
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN P. PINKERTON,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–15. Claim 12 is cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
(Appeal Br. 4.)
Appeal 2018-002410
Application 14/833,014

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to user
interfaces for receiving user input, including the display of paging
affordances that enlarge and allow a user to select a particular page of a user
interface. (Abstr.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising
instructions, which when executed by one or more processors
of an electronic device with a display, cause the device to:
receive a user input;
in response to receiving the user input:
identify a most recently accessed user input
technique of a set of user input techniques,
wherein the most recently accessed user input
technique has a first user input interface;
identify a least recently accessed user input
technique of the set of user input techniques,
wherein the least recently accessed user input
technique has a second user input interface
different than the first user input interface;
display, on the display, the first user input
interface of the most recently accessed user input
technique; and
display, on the display, a first affordance
associated with the second user input interface of
the least recently accessed user input technique;
and
while displaying the first user input interface, receive
user input associated with the first affordance; and
in response to receiving the user input associated with the
first affordance, replace display of the first user input interface
of the most recently accessed user input technique with display
Appeal 2018-002410
Application 14/833,014

3

of the second user input interface of the least recently accessed
user input technique.
(Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).)

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mehra et al. (US 2008/0046839 A1, pub.
Feb. 21, 2008), and Zeng (US 2013/0024802 A1, pub. Jan. 24, 2013). (Final
Act. 3–10.)
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mehra, Zeng, and Andrew (US 2003/0074647
A1, pub. Apr. 17, 2003). (Final Act. 10–15.)
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mehra, Zeng, Andrew, and Sorvari (US 2006/0035632
A1, pub. Feb. 16, 2006). (Final Act. 15–17.)
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mehra, Zeng, Andrew, Grieves et al. (US 2015/0100537
A1, pub. Apr. 9, 2015), and Faaborg et al. (US 8,996,639 B1, iss. Mar. 31,
2015). (Final Act. 17–20.)
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mehra, Zeng, and Lee (US 2008/0155428 A1, pub.
June 26, 2008). (Final Act. 20–24.)
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mehra, Zeng, Andrew, and Skare et al. (US 2015/0195179
A1, pub. July 9, 2015). (Final Act. 24–27.)
Appeal 2018-002410
Application 14/833,014

4

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments present the following issue2:
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mehra and
Zeng would have taught or suggested the independent claim 1 limitations:
in response to receiving the user input:
identify a least recently accessed user input technique of
the set of user input techniques, wherein the least recently
accessed user input technique has a second user input interface
different than the first user input interface; and
display, on the display, a first affordance associated with
the second user input interface of the least recently accessed
user input technique;
and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 14 and 15. (Appeal
Br. 20–25, 29–37.)
ANALYSIS
“Affordance” in the context of the claims is defined in the
Specification:
As used here, the term “affordance” refers to a user-
interactive graphical user interface object that is, optionally,
displayed on the display screen. . . . For example, an image
(e.g., icon), a button, and text (e.g., hyperlink) each optionally
constitute an affordance.
(Spec. ¶ 201.) Examples of affordances are illustrated in the portion of
Figure 6A of the Specification set forth below:

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 27, 2017) (“Appeal
Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 2, 2018) (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office
Action (mailed Oct. 26, 2016) (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Nov. 2, 2017) (“Ans.”) for the respective details.
Appeal 2018-002410
Application 14/833,014

5

The above portion of Figure 6A illustrates a touch-sensitive display 606 of a
“user input technique” labelled “Add Contact: Recents,” which includes
affordances 606A-606E. For example, if a user taps the “Dictation”
affordance 606B, a different user input technique, “Add Contact: Dictation”
(not shown above) is displayed. According to the described assumptions
underlying this example, display 606 appeared in response to a user input,
and at that point “Add Contact: Recents” is the claimed “most recently
accessed user input technique,” “Add Contact: Dictation” is the claimed
“least recently accessed user input technique,” and affordance 606B is the
claimed “affordance associated with the . . . user input interface of the least
recently accessed user input technique.” (Spec. Fig. 6A, ¶¶ 214–228.)
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Mehra of
switching between available input modes in an electronic device such as a
mobile phone during character input by repeatedly pressing a “mode change
key,” which can be “a mechanical button on the keypad, a virtual button . . .
or other graphical user interface (GUI) element.” (Mehra Abstr., ¶¶ 15, 27,
30.) One described embodiment provides for a “dynamic list of input modes
based on the current usage patterns of the mobile device and only the modes
Appeal 2018-002410
Application 14/833,014

6

in the dynamic list are iterated through on the press of a second key for input
mode selection.” (Id. ¶ 40.) Table 3, set forth below, is an example of a
dynamic list.

Table 3 depicts a dynamic list embodiment, with an input mode list
including three input modes: “Capital English ABC”; “Normal English abc”;
and “Numeric.” By pressing the second mode change key, the user can
cycle through the listed input modes one after the other. (Id. Fig. 7.) The
list is “dynamic” in the sense that, if a user selects an input mode not on the
list (by using the first input mode change key), it is added to the list and the
last entry is deleted, as shown in Table 4 set forth below.

Table 4 depicts the input mode list after a user has selected the “Smart
English” input mode, causing it to be added to the list and the “Numeric”
input mode to be removed. (Id. ¶ 43.) As explained in the Specification:
Appeal 2018-002410
Application 14/833,014

7

[W]hen typing the . . . message “Please call me at pixtel soon,”
the first input mode Smart English is utilized to type “Please
call me at” . . . . The second key is pressed twice to switch to
third mode abc for entering “pixtel” . . . and pressed once to
return to Smart English for entry of “soon” . . . .
(Id. ¶ 44.)
The Examiner finds this operation of the dynamic list embodiment of
Mehra teaches or suggests “identify[ing] a least recently accessed user input
technique” — namely, by removing the “Numeric” input mode from the list,
and moving “Normal English abc” to the bottom, the latter mode is
identified as the least recently used, according to the Examiner. (Final Act.
5; Ans. 28) The Examiner further finds that the display of the input mode
change key (assuming it is implemented as a graphical user interface
element as provided), when used to select the last input mode on the list
(“Normal English abc” in this example), teaches or suggests the claimed
display of a “first affordance.” (Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 28.)
The Examiner does not rely on the disclosure of Zeng for these
requirements of the independent claims. (Final Act. 7.)
Appellant argues that the above-described dynamic list embodiment
of Mehra does not teach or suggest identifying a least recently accessed user
input technique or displaying an affordance associated with that technique.
(Appeal Br. 20–25, 29–37.) We agree with Appellant. In the above
example of Mehra describing the transition from Table 3 to Table 4, when a
user selects the “Smart English” input mode, causing it to be added to the
dynamic list, there is nothing to suggest which input mode was the
immediately preceding selected mode. It could have been any of “Capital
English ABC”; “Normal English abc”; or “Numeric.” If “Normal English
Appeal 2018-002410
Application 14/833,014

8

abc” was the immediately preceding mode, then certainly that mode could
not be the “least recently accessed user input technique” as required by the
claim. There is no disclosure in Mehra of keeping track of which entry on
the list is the most recently or least recently selected input mode.3 Nor do
the input selection keys, even if embodied as graphic user interfaces,
correspond to an affordance associated with a least recently accessed user
input technique.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 14, and 15 as obvious over Mehra and Zeng. We also
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–11 and 13, which depend
from claim 1.

3 We note the suggestion in Mehra of an alternative way to manage the
dynamic list, to “measure the frequency of usage of respective input modes,
automatically add the most frequently used input mode to the dynamic list
and remove the least used.” (Mehra ¶ 45.) Even this approach does not
keep track of which entry on the dynamic list is the most recently used or
least recently used — “frequency” and “recency” are distinct and separate
properties.
Appeal 2018-002410
Application 14/833,014

9

CONCLUSION
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15 103 Mehra, Zeng  1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15
3, 4, 11 103 Mehra, Zeng, Andrew 3, 4, 11
5 103 Mehra, Zeng, Andrew,
Sorvari
5
6 103 Mehra, Zeng, Andrew,
Grieves, Faaborg
6
9, 10 103 Mehra, Zeng, Lee 9, 10
13 103 Mehra, Zeng, Andrew,
Skare
13
Overall Outcome 1–11, 13–15