Ex Parte Englund et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 201613412827 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/412,827 03/06/2012 Hakan Mats Englund 23380 7590 03/23/2016 TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 MAIN A VENUE SUITE 1100 CLEVELAND, OH 44113-7213 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. PS06 l 703US2 6702 EXAMINER PARK, EDWARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2666 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2016 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): patents@tuckerellis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAKAN MATS ENGLUND and SIMON LESSING Appeal2014-006390 Application 13/412,827 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, HUNG H. BUI, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-006390 Application 13/412,827 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The application is directed to "communications devices and, more particularly, to displaying text by communications devices." (Spec. i-f 2.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method performed by a mobile device, comprising: displaying an image via a display of the mobile device; receiving a first user selection of a portion of the image; identifying text in the selected portion of the image; displaying the identified text via the display; receiving a second user selection of at least a portion of the identified text; translating the portion of the identified text from a first language into a second language that differs from the first language; and displaying the translated text, in the second language, over the image via the display. 1 Appellants identify Sony Mobile Communications AB as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 3.) 2 Appeal2014-006390 Application 13/412,827 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Labarge US 2002/0188435 Al Dec. 12, 2002 Newman et al. US 2002/0191847 Al Dec. 19, 2002 Seeger et al. US 2003/0185448 Al Oct. 2, 2003 Ma et al. US 2003/0202683 Al Oct. 30, 2003 Tagawa et al. US 2006/0217958 Al Sept. 28, 2006 Guo et al. US 2008/0221862 Al Sept. 11, 2008 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 13, and 16 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,990 B2. (See Final Act. 7.) 2. Claims 1--4, 5, 8, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over ivia and Seeger. (See Final Act. 8-13.) 3. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma, Seeger, and Tagawa. (See Final Act. 13-15.) 4. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma, Seeger, and Newman. (See Final Act. 15-16.) 5. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma, Seeger, and Guo. (See Final Act. 16-17.) 6. Claims 11, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma, Seeger, and Labarge. (See Final Act. 17-22.) 3 Appeal2014-006390 Application 13/412,827 7. Claims 12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma, Seeger, Labarge, and Guo. (See Final Act. 22-24.) APPELLANTS' CONTENTION Appellants argue that the rejections were improper because "MA and SEEGER do not disclose or suggest receiving a second user selection of at least a portion of the identified text, and translating the portion of the identified text from a first language into a second language that differs from the first language." (App. Br. 9.) ANALYSIS Obviousness of Claims 1-20 Appellants argue that "[a]lthough MA and SEEGER disclose receiving user selections during different stages of an OCR process, the key element is that neither MA [nor] SEEGER disclose or suggest performing more than one user selection," because "MA discloses receiving a singular user selection of an object for simultaneous recognition and translation and SEEGER discloses receiving a singular user selection of a number of active regions in an already OCR'd image." (App. Br. 11.) We agree with the Examiner that Appellants are improperly arguing the references individually. (See Ans. 25 (citing In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).) In the combination, the Examiner finds that "Ma discloses the concept of displaying an image, having the user select a portion of the image, identify the text portion, translate the selected portion and display it over the image on a display" and "Seeger discloses the 4 Appeal2014-006390 Application 13/412,827 concept of refining the selection process by enabling the user to refine a portion of identified text for further processing." (Ans. 27 .) The Examiner correctly explains that "the Seeger reference is not required to disclose two distinct user selections within only the Seeger reference, but rather only the concepts as seen within the 35 USC 103(a) rejection as seen above, displaying identified text, and receiving a second user selection." (Id.) In essence, the Examiner finds that Ma discloses all features except for the refinement of the first selection, which is disclosed by Seeger. We discern no error in that analysis and, accordingly, sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Double Patenting Because Appellants present no separate argument regarding the double patenting rejection (see App. Br. 7), the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 16 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is summarily affirmed. DECISION The rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed. 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 )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation