Yu Kun et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 20212020000603 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 11/094,823 03/30/2005 Yu Kun 47315-US-PAT 9572 100809 7590 08/02/2021 Conversant Wireless Licensing Ltd. 5830 Granite Parkway #100-247 Suite 247 Plano, TX 75024 EXAMINER ONYEKABA, AMY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 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): ipadmin-core@conversant-wireless.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YU KUN, WANG KONGQIAO, and JAR A. KANGAS Appeal 2020-000603 Application 11/094,823 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EVANS, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 38–52, which are all claims pending in the application. Appellant has canceled claims 1–37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Conversant Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000603 Application 11/094,823 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The claimed subject matter is directed to an improved mobile communication terminal and method. See Spec. (Title). In particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention “relate[] to a method and apparatus as well as a computer program for controlling a mobile communication terminal that is capable of handwriting recognition. Spec. 1:3–6. Exemplary Claim Claim 38, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on Appeal (emphasis added to contested prior-art limitations): 38. A method of entering text into a mobile device, comprising: displaying a first arrangement of a plurality of symbol sub-areas at a touch-sensitive portion of a display of the device, each of the plurality of symbol sub-areas in the first arrangement representing a text symbol; displaying at least one function sub-area at the touch- sensitive portion; receiving an input corresponding to a touch action at a position of the touch-sensitive portion within the displayed first arrangement of the plurality of symbol sub-areas; responsive to the input corresponding to a trace comprised of a sequence of detected positions of the touch- sensitive portion, recognizing a text input from the sequence by 2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July 5, 2019); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sept. 3, 2019); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Nov. 5, 2018); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Mar. 30, 2005). Appellant did not file a Reply Brief in response to the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2020-000603 Application 11/094,823 3 analyzing the sequence in a hand writing recognition procedure; responsive to the input corresponding to a tapping action at one of the plurality of symbol sub-areas, recognizing a text input as the text symbol corresponding to that symbol sub-area; and responsive to the input corresponding to a tapping action at a function sub-area, displaying a second arrangement of a plurality of symbol sub-areas at the touch-sensitive portion, wherein each of at least a subset of the plurality of symbol sub- areas in the second arrangement represents a different text symbol from the text symbols represented in the first arrangement. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence: Name Reference Date Skinner US 6,661,920 B1 Dec. 9, 2003 Graham US 2004/0070573 A1 Apr. 14, 2004 Kushler et al. (“Kushler”) US 7,098,896 B2 Aug. 29, 2006 REJECTION Claims 38–52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Skinner, Kushler, and Graham. Final Act. 13. Appeal 2020-000603 Application 11/094,823 4 CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 4–13) and our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 38–52 on the basis of representative claim 38.3 ISSUES Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 4–11) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Skinner, Kushler, and Graham is in error. These contentions present us with the following issues: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests “[a] method of entering text into a mobile device” that includes, inter alia, “recognizing a text input from the sequence by analyzing the sequence in a hand writing recognition procedure”, as recited in claim 38? PRINCIPLES OF LAW “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, 3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appeal 2020-000603 Application 11/094,823 5 the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425. In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill . . . . [A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of Appeal 2020-000603 Application 11/094,823 6 ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 38–52 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 38 for emphasis as follows. The Examiner finds, Graham teaches a method of combining data entry of handwritten symbols with displayed character data wherein the data being entered is analyzed in a handwriting recognition procedure (See Fig’s. 1, 2, 3 and Para. [0029]–[0036]; After a handwritten character is entered 18, handwriting recognition software processes the input data, recognizes the handwritten input, and displays the resulting character in the display field 13 at the location of the edit cursor 19). Also Applicant prior art disclosure see Page 2, lines 9-14 it states ‘The movement of the stylus along a trace over the touch sensitive pad or display generates a trace signal that is digitized and analyzed by Appeal 2020-000603 Application 11/094,823 7 handwriting recognition procedures that typically are implemented by means of software instructions[.]’ Final Act. 16. Appellant contends, “there is no teaching or suggestion in the Graham reference of the use of handwriting recognition to recognize a text input from strokes made over a virtual keyboard (i.e., an arrangement of a plurality of symbol sub-areas, each representing a text symbol, as claimed).” Appeal Br. 9. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the Examiner’s finding that Graham teaches “recognizing a text input from the sequence by analyzing the sequence in a hand writing recognition procedure” as recited in claim 38. Final Act. 16. We agree with the Examiner because Graham in Figure 2 shows recognizing text input from a sequence of inputs using hand writing recognition procedures. Figure 2 of Graham is replicated below: Appeal 2020-000603 Application 11/094,823 8 “FIG. 2 is a sample handwriting recognition graphical user interface for a portable digital assistant device, in accordance with the present invention.” Graham ¶ 24. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine Graham with Kushler and Skinner, “in order to enhance the system providing user’s [sic] with a user friendly and intuitive interface.” Final Act. 16. Appellant argues the “Graham reference specifically contrasts its operation with that of a prior device corresponding substantially to that disclosed in the Skinner reference.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Graham ¶ 33). The Federal Circuit held “[a] known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Graham teaches, “[t]he interface according to the present invention appears much simpler than the previous example, as it requires no separate areas for text recognition, no menu buttons, and no graphical keyboards for its operation.” Graham ¶ 33. Graham, however, also shows several menu buttons, i.e., on the top of Figure 2 as the days of the week; and on the bottom of Figure 4, e.g., “Sel”. Graham Figure 9 illustrates a shortened keyboard 103 with selectable letters that present options for interpretation of user hand writing in cases of ambiguity. Graham’s statement that an input without a separate area for text recognition or menu buttons is “much simpler” (see Graham ¶ 33), appears to be contradicted by Graham’s own disclosure, e.g., Figures 2, 4, and 9. Appeal 2020-000603 Application 11/094,823 9 Furthermore, we find that Graham’s teaching in paragraph 33 is analogous to the holding in Gurley that a virtual keyboard and separate areas for menu buttons is “somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Graham’s disclosure in paragraph 33 that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is in error. Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 38, nor do we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 38, and grouped claims 39–52 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. CONCLUSIONS We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection. More specifically, Appellant has not persuasively argued that the Examiner erred with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 38–52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination of record, and we sustain the rejection. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 38–52 103(a) Skinner, Kushler, Graham 38–52 Appeal 2020-000603 Application 11/094,823 10 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation