Ex Parte Colley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

13711114 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/711,114 12/11/2012
10949 7590 05/02/2018
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ashley Colley
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
042933/427955 4474
EXAMINER
KEATON, SHERROD L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHLEY COLLEY and JANNE KYLLONEN
Appeal 2017-011128
Application 13/711, 114 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-16, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011128
Application 13/711, 114
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
Appellants' invention relates to the field of text entry, and
particularly, the presentation of "predictive text" in the display of a handheld
device. Spec. 1. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as
follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code,
the at least one memory and the computer program code
configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the
apparatus to perform at least the following:
enable the presentation of predictive text candidates in
an area associated with the provision of control
elements, during text entry of a message based on a text
string entered into a text entry field and dependent upon
the one or more predictive text candidates presented in
the control elements area, the control elements being
associated with non-predictive-text functions and the
control elements being configured to modify the message
to be subsequently transmitted with a non-predictive-text
function or to perform a function that relates to sending
of the message or to a calendar entry associated with the
message,
wherein the apparatus is configured to enable the presentation
of one or more control elements in the control elements area
during entry of the text string prior to completion of a word and
to enable the presentation of a greater number of control
elements in the control elements area upon detecting that the
entered text string is a complete word.
2
Appeal 2017-011128
Application 13/711, 114
App. Br. 10 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10-16 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2010/0178947 Al; July
15, 2010) ("Kim") and Paasovaara (US 2009/0187846 Al; July 23, 2009).
Final Act. (July 28, 2016) 2---6.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim, Paasovaara, and Changuion et al. (US
2012/0297332 Al; Nov. 22, 2012). Final Act. 6-7.
Claim 7 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Paasovaara, and Jonsson (US 2011/0320548 Al;
Dec. 29, 2011). Final Act. 7-8.
Claims 8 and 9 stand under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Paasovaara, and Samuelson et al. (US 2007/01567 4 7
Al; July 5, 2007). Final Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
3
Appeal 2017-011128
Application 13/711, 114
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10-16
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10-16 are rejected as obvious over Kim and
Paasovaara. Appellants argue the claims as a group, and we select claim 1
as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv)
(representative claims).
The Examiner finds Kim's Figure 13 teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for the display of control elements (i) in an area with
predictive text candidates and (ii) during mid-entry ("prior to completion'')
of a word. Final Act. 2-3 ( emphasis added). The Examiner finds it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such
features in the embodiment shown in Kim Figure 13, in view of the
teachings of Paasovaara's Figure 5. Id. at 3--4. We agree. We begin with
an overview of the figures relied upon by the Examiner.
Kim's Figure 13 is partially reproduced below.
The name is highUg,hled and
2 oimon buttons pop up
~ .... --------------------- t tncHca tor) _______ \M@' _ !:
rs: create u trnl :,
j ! . Jane; Pay Mism; ::::::::11
·1: Ii!:'.!'' there now are YOO, Cathy , !
lL-=;71.r: -,-- . . ~
) Send to_ y· insen i AoG !/ ·Mom i
:·:-.-.-•............ : ... .....:_.-••...............• ..l. ___ .-.-.-.-.-.-.-~«-:-.------- ~
-·. < 263 >·i
~ r • ran .
"" ] Tao
Fig. 13 depicts a text message screen displaying a text entry ("Hey
there how are you, Cathy") and control elements ("Copy number" and
"Call"). Kim ,r,r 118-121.
Paasovaara's Figure 5 is reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2017-011128
Application 13/711, 114
Figure 5 depicts a text message screen displaying an incomplete text
entry ("O_") and candidate word field 100. Paasovaara ,r,r 46-48.
Among the candidate words (predictive elements) shown in Figure 5
are":)", "See you.", "OMG", "On," and "has". Paasovaara teaches that
":)" constitutes an "emoticon." Paasovaara ,r,r 7, 32, 45; Spec. 4, 11. 26-
3 7; claim 11.
Appellants argue Paasovaara's Figure 5 does not illustrate (teach
or suggest) "control elements." App. Br. 6-7. Specifically, Appellants
argue that Paasovaara's smiley-face ":)" text combination in candidate
word field 100 is not an "emoticon" and thus cannot be considered a
control element, because the Specification's examples of "emoticon"
control elements are all picture-type emoticons. Reply Br. 2.
Accordingly, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Paasovaara with Kim teaches or suggests displaying
control elements with predictive text candidates. Id.
5
Appeal 2017-011128
Application 13/711, 114
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants'
Specification states that one example of a control element is an "emoticon."
Just as in Paasovaara, Appellants' Specification describes "emoticons"
formed by text characters. Spec. 2, 11. 28-31; see also DICTIONARY OF
COMPUTING (6th ed. 2010)
(https :// search.credoreference. com/ content/ entry/ acbcomp/ emoticon/0 (last
visited Mar. 24, 2018)) ("emoticon: an arrangement of letters and symbols
that represents a particular emotion, e.g. :-) for happiness [i.e.,] smiley").
Although the figures in Appellants' Specification illustrate only picture-type
emoticons, those emoticons are described as merely "[ e ]xample [ a ]spects" of
the invention (Spec. 7 ( emphasis omitted)) and "may be incorporated in any
other disclosed or described or suggested form or embodiment as a general
matter of design choice" (id. at 20).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10-16.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected as obvious over Kim, Paasovaara, and Jonsson.
Appellants argue "Kim, Pa[a]sovaara and Jonsson fail to teach or suggest the
presentation of one or more predictive text candidates in the control
elements area during entry of the text string prior to completion of a word[,]
as recited by dependent claim 7." App. Br. 9. We are not persuaded, for
each of two reasons.
First, as the Examiner finds, Paasovaara suggests this feature. As
noted herein with reference to feature (ii) of claim 1, the Examiner finds
Paasovaara's Figure 5 embodiment displays control elements and predictive
6
Appeal 2017-011128
Application 13/711, 114
text candidates during mid-entry of a word. Final Act. 3--4. We agree,
because Paasovaara Figure 5 illustrates the display of control elements and
predictive text candidates during entry of the text string "O_" and does so
prior to completion of an intended word ( e.g., of a predicted word "Oliver,"
"Owen," or "OMG"). See also Paasovaara ,r 39 ("[T]he context determiner
88 ... provide[s] situational awareness to the candidate selector 82 ... [and]
may provide ... previous entries (e.g., prior words and/or characters)."). In
view of the foregoing, we find Paasovaara's Figure 5 suggests displaying the
Kim-Paasovaara combination's control elements and predictive text "during
entry of the text string prior to completion of a word" ( claim 7).
Second, notwithstanding Paasovaara's teachings, Jonsson's Figure IC
illustrates predictive text candidates ("VAST" and "VARA") during
mid-entry of a word ("V Al"). See Final Act. 8; see also Jonsson ,r 37 ("As
illustrated in FIG. IC, user interface 125 may include a text prediction 130
that provides possible words to complete the word 'va' in text message
120."). By displaying predictive text candidates during mid-entry of a word,
Jonsson suggests displaying the Kim-Paasovaara combination's
concurrently-displayed predictive text candidates and control elements
"during entry of the text string prior to completion of a word" ( claim 7).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Remaining Claims
Dependent claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected as obvious over Kim,
Paasovaara, and additional references. Appellants do not argue these claims
separately from independent claims 1 or 7. Accordingly, we sustain their
rejections for the reasons set forth above.
7
Appeal 2017-011128
Application 13/711, 114
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8