Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 8, 2021

2020006033 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 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.
15/598,340 05/18/2017 Shota KANEKO 70404.3537/ka 1068
54072 7590 12/08/2021
SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA
C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHAU T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2021 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM
epreston@kbiplaw.com
uspto@kbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHOTA KANEKO and TOHRU NISHIKAWA
Appeal 2020-006033
Application 15/598,340
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MINN CHUNG, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14 and 15, which are all of the pending
claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use “Appellant” herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sharp Kabushiki
Kaisha. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–13 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.); Final Act.
2.
Appeal 2020-006033
Application 15/598,340

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure relates “to a technique of guiding a character
input method for a touch panel of a mobile terminal such as a smartphone or
a tablet and various devices.” Spec. ¶ 1. By way of background,
Appellant’s Specification describes touch panels as used in electronic
devices, in which “character input using a touch panel is performed when
array-displayed character buttons are selected and selected characters are
displayed in order from the beginning in an input character display region.”
Id. ¶ 2. Input operations on the touch panel include “a tap operation (lightly
touch)” as well as “a flick operation (slide).” Id.
Appellant’s Specification notes that prior art input methods included
assigning a plurality of characters to representative characters, in which a
desired character from among the plurality of possible characters is selected
by a tap or a flick. Id. In some prior-art methods, “pressing a representative
character causes changing to a guide image” that displays multiple possible
character choices that may be selected by pressing or by flicking in the
indicated direction. Id. ¶ 3. Appellant’s Specification notes that in such
prior-art techniques, the guide image is superimposed over some adjacent
characters, interfering with “an input operation of a next character.” Id. ¶ 4.
Appellant’s Specification describes a method for performing a flick
operation wherein a guide image is displayed separately from the input
buttons—that is, outside of an array display region of the representative
characters. Id. ¶ 6.
Appeal 2020-006033
Application 15/598,340

3
Claims 14 and 15 are independent. Claim 14, reproduced below, is
representative:
14. An input guide method for performing a flick
operation, the input guide method accepting a touch operation
to a button selected from buttons that array-display
representative characters on a touch panel, and then accepting
the flick operation to the button so as to specify an assigned
character selected from predetermined assigned characters that
are assigned to a representative character corresponding to the
button,
the input guide method comprising:
storing the buttons and information of each of the
buttons, the information including:
display coordinate information indicating a coordinate
of a button on the touch panel, and
arrangement direction corresponding information of
the assigned characters that indicates arrangement directions
of the assigned characters respectively,
storing a guide image that corresponds to the display
coordinate information and the arrangement direction
corresponding information,
reading out the buttons and the display coordinate
information of the buttons, and displaying the buttons in an
array-display area on the touch panel based on the display
coordinate information,
reading out the guide image, displaying the guide image
outside the array-display area on the touch panel, and
displaying the guide image in a portion of a display region that
displays an input character on the touch panel,
displaying, in the guide image and in different colors,
portions corresponding to a representative character and
assigned characters,
detecting a touch operation to a button and a flick
operation based on a continuous transition of a detection
position of the touch operation, and
Appeal 2020-006033
Application 15/598,340

4
selecting a representative character of a button when the
touch operation to the button is detected, and selecting an
assigned character assigned to a flick direction when a flick
operation is detected.
Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name3 Reference Date
Kusano US 2014/0157126 A1 June 5, 2014
Rhee US 2016/0048297 A1 Feb. 18, 2016
Chung US 2016/0054810 A1 Feb. 25, 2016
REJECTION
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Kusano, Rhee, and Chung. Final Act. 2–6.
OPINION
The Examiner finds Kusano teaches most of the limitations of
claim 14 (Final Act. 3–4 (citing Kusano ¶¶ 137, 139, 144, 149, 150, 241,
Figs. 6, 7, 10, 11)), except for “displaying, in the guide image and in
different colors, portions corresponding to a representative character and
assigned characters,” and “displaying the guide image in a portion of a
display region that displays an input character on the touch panel” (see id. at
5). For those limitations, the Examiner additionally relies on Rhee and
Chung, respectively. See id. (citing Rhee ¶ 68 and Chung ¶¶ 137–138,
Fig. 12). With regard to the latter limitation, the Examiner finds Chung
teaches

3 All references are identified by the first-named inventor.
Appeal 2020-006033
Application 15/598,340

5
In the same field of endeavor, Chung discloses in Figure
12 and paragraphs [0137]-[0138] that when the “ABC” key
1212, which is the first key, is touched on the first keypad 1210,
the character input apparatus informs that it is the character key
input mode of the second keypad and displays a second keypad
1230 (guide image) including character keys included in the
first key in a character input window area 1220 (a portion of a
display region). If the user performs a touch more action on the
second keypad 1230 and releases the touch on a desired
character key, the character input apparatus displays a
corresponding character in the character input area 1220.
Id. at 5–6.
Appellant argues error in the Examiner’s finding that Kusano and
Chung teach or suggest a guide image that meets the requirements of
claim 14. See Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellant contends that the cited
references, alone or in combination, do not disclose “the display of both
buttons, which accept touch operations, in an array-display area and a guide
image outside of the array-display area in a portion of a display region that
displays an input character on the touch panel.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
As for Kusano, Appellant contends:
Kusano simply shows a visualization of flick directions.
Accordingly, paragraph [0241] and Figs. 57 and 58 of Kusano
are clearly directed to touch operations by a user on the touch
panel (e.g., buttons that accept touch operations), but are
entirely silent regarding a guide image that is outside of an area
on the touch panel that displays buttons able to receive user
inputs.
In contrast to Kusano, Appellant’s claimed invention
requires that the buttons that accept touch operations are
displayed in the array-display area on the touch panel, whereas
the guide image is displayed outside the array-display area on
the touch panel and in a portion of a display region that displays
an input character on the touch panel.
Appeal 2020-006033
Application 15/598,340

6
Id.
As for Chung, Appellant argues with reference to Figure 12,
reproduced below:

Figure 12 of Chang, reproduced above, depicts screens illustrating “a
method of inputting a character.” Chung ¶ 48.
Appellant contends:
As shown in Fig. 12 of Chung, when an “ABC” key 1212
is touched on a first keypad 1210, the second keypad 1230 is
displayed in a character input area 1220. Subsequently, when a
user touches a displayed character on the second keypad 1230,
the touched character is selected (see, for example, paragraphs
[0137] and [0138] of Chung).
The character input device used in the method shown in
Fig. 12 of Chung is a device in which two completely separate
regions of a screen, namely, the character key 1212 and the
second keypad 1230, are touched in sequence.
. . .
That is, the character input portions of Chung, the character key
1212 and the second keypad 1230, are separately displayed and
correspond to different touch inputs. In contrast to Chung,
Appellant’s claimed invention recites that characters are input
Appeal 2020-006033
Application 15/598,340

7
on a touch panel by a single touch action that includes the user
touching and flicking on the touch panel.
Appeal Br. 9–10.
The Examiner responds by stating that Kusano discloses displaying
different buttons at different “positions/locations/coordinates,” and further
finds that Kusano discloses in Figure 11, “the whole guide image 21 is
displayed at a different position (upper corner of screen 1J) . . . while the
displaying of the buttons shown in Figure 6–7 is at a different position (in
the middle of the screen 1J) than the guide image 21.” Ans. 9. The
Examiner then concludes:
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that the
displaying of image guide 21 shown in Figure 11 is outside the
array-display are[a] on the touch panel and in a portion of a
display region that displays an input character on the touch
panel, although both buttons and the guide image 21 are not
displayed at the same time, which are not claimed in the
claimed invention of claim 14.
Id. The Examiner also notes that the Chung reference more clearly discloses
displaying “a second keypad” (which the Examiner maps to a “guide
image”) in a “character input window” (which the Examiner maps to “a
display region that displays [an] input character on the touch panel”). Id.
Appellant responds by stating that in Kusano, the displays shown in
Figures 6 and 7 vs. Figure 11 are alternative arrangements of the same group
object centered around a finger contact point, wherein the finger contact
point is in a different location in the different figures. Reply Br. 2 (citing
Kusano ¶¶ 144, 145). Thus, in Kusano, the guide image is not displayed
outside the array-display area. Id. Appellant further contends that, in
Chung, the second keypad is not a “guide image,” as recited in claim 14, but
Appeal 2020-006033
Application 15/598,340

8
is instead an entirely separate keypad that itself receives a touch input. Id.
at 3. Appellant continues:
Furthermore, the second keypad 1230 of Chung is an
essential element for receiving touch operations by the user. In
particular, if a user were not to touch and release the second
keypad 1230 of Chung, a desired character key could not be
selected (see, for example, paragraph [0138] of Chung).
Accordingly, both of the first keypad 1210 and the second
keypad 1230 of Chung must receive touch inputs, and neither
the first keypad 1210 nor the second keypad 1230 of Chung can
be reasonably interpreted as a “guide image.”
In contrast to Chung, Appellant’s claimed invention
requires that the buttons, which receive touch and flick
operations, are displayed in the array-display area, whereas the
guide image is displayed outside the array-display area.
Therefore, Chung clearly fails to teach or suggest the guide
image of Appellant’s claimed invention, and thus fails to cure
the deficiencies of Kusano.
Id.
We are persuaded of Examiner error for essentially the reasons argued
by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 5–10; Reply Br. 2–4. We highlight the
following points in support of our determination.
First, we agree with Appellant that Kusano does not teach or suggest
“displaying the guide image outside the array-display area on the touch
panel.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 6. As Appellant notes, and we
agree, Kusano’s character object group 21 is not a guide image, but is
instead a collection of buttons that accept touch operations from the user.
Appeal Br. 8. Moreover, even if Kusano’s character object group 21 could
be viewed as a guide image, Kusano does not teach or suggest displaying
character object group 21 outside the array-display area, as claimed. As
Appellant notes, and we agree, the Examiner’s pointing to different locations
Appeal 2020-006033
Application 15/598,340

9
of the character object group in Figures 6 and 7 vs. Figure 11 is unavailing
of the Examiner’s position, because these figures are depicting different
locations of a finger contact point and the resulting character object group
that is centered on the finger contact point. See Reply Br. 3; Kusano ¶¶ 137,
145.
Second, we also agree with Appellant that Chung, alone or in
combination with Kusano, does not teach or suggest “displaying the guide
image outside the array-display area on the touch panel.” Appeal Br. 10;
see also Reply Br. 3–4. Chung does not display a guide image at all, but
instead provides a second input display once the first input display is
touched. Reply Br. 3. Chung requires input to the second display to select a
desired character from among those associated with a character as displayed
on the first display. Chung ¶¶ 137, 138. In contrast, claim 14 recites that
input is accepted from buttons in an array-display area, whereas the guide
image is displayed “outside the array-display area”; thus, claim 14 does not
contemplate input via a guide image, but only via buttons in the array-
display area. We agree with Appellant that Chung’s second touch display,
which must receive input for a character to be selected, does not teach or
suggest a “guide image outside the array-display area on the touch panel.”
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in
finding that the combined teachings of Kusano, Rhee, and Chung teach or
suggest all limitations of claim 14, and we, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 (or claim 15, which recites commensurate
limitations).
Appeal 2020-006033
Application 15/598,340

10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 14 and 15 is not
sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14, 15 103 Kusano, Rhee,
Chung
14, 15
REVERSED