Ex Parte Griffin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2014

10787315 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JASON T. GRIFFIN
__________

Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
of text input in a mobile electronic device. The Examiner rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Research in Motion,
Limited (see App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

2 

Statement of the Case
Background
“A method includes associating overlapping areas of a touch interface
of a mobile electronic device with letters such that each area is associated
with only one letter. The method also includes detecting a location of a
user’s touch on the touch interface” (Spec. 2 ¶ 0004). The Specification
teaches that if “two or more letters are identified, predictive text software is
used to determine which of the identified letters the user intended to select.
The predictive text software may be provided with an indication that the
location is closer to one of the identified letters than to others of the
identified letters” (Spec. 2 ¶ 0005).
The Claims
Claims 1, 3-12, 15, 22-28, 31, and 34-38 are on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
associating areas of a touch interface of a mobile
electronic device with characters, wherein at least some of
the associated areas overlap with one another to form
intermediate regions that represent more than one character;
detecting a location of a user’s touch on the touch
interface; for each area of the touch interface which includes
the location, identifying the character associated therewith;
and
wherein for a first character, the associating comprises
associating an area of the touch interface with the first
character by joining the centers of characters nearest to the
first character.

Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

3 

The Issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28,
31, 34, 35, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chua,2
Davidson,3 and Vargas4 (Ans. 4-10).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 11, 24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Chua, Davidson, Vargas, and Moon5 (Ans. 10-11).
C. The Examiner rejected claims 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Chua, Davidson, Vargas, and Robinson6 (Ans. 11-12).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chua, Davidson, and Vargas
The Examiner finds that Chua teaches
a method and computer readable medium comprising:
associating areas of a touch interface of a mobile electronic
device with characters wherein at least some of the
associated areas overlap with one another (Page 2,
Paragraph 23 and 24); detecting a location of a user's touch
on the touch interface and for each area of the touch
interface which includes the location, identifying the
character associated therewith (Page 2, Paragraph 19 and
20).

(Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that Chua “does not explicitly show an
intermediate region that represents more than one character. However
Davidson shows the functionality of providing control areas with extended
regions which form an intermediate region” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds
that Chua does not “explicitly disclose wherein for a first character, the
associating comprises associating an area of the touch interface with the first

2 Chua, Y., US 2004/0183833 A1, published Sep. 23, 2004.
3 Davidson, M., US 5,627,567, issued May 6, 1997.
4 Vargas, G., US 5,748,512, issued May 5, 1998.
5 Moon et al., US 6,259,436 B1, issued Jul. 10, 2001.
6 Robinson et al., US 6,801,190 B1, issued Oct. 5, 2004. 
Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

4 

character by joining the centers of characters nearest to the first character.
However Vargas discloses a functionality of associating a center point of
letters associated with the intended selection” (Ans. 5).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “provide the functionality of
associating the centers of letters in Chua as taught in Vargas. One would
have been motivated to provide this functionality to offer an improved
method of determining the intended selection by the user when multiple
options are present” (Ans. 5).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Chua, Davidson,
and Vargas render claim 1 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Chua teaches that:
In a selection operation, by touching one of the virtual keys
22 of the virtual keyboard 20, the symbol on that key is
selected to appear as the next symbol in a message line 24 in
the message area 16. A stylus (not shown) is ideally used to
select individual virtual keys 22 as it allows greater accuracy
of touch or contact on the touch screen 12 than a finger. . . .
The mobile telephone 10 includes predictive word input
technology to help anticipate what the user is trying to input,
with reference to a dictionary database.

(Chua 2 ¶¶ 0020-0021).
2. Chua teaches that
touching a key 22 on the virtual keyboard 20 is not simply
taken as a selection of that key. There may have been a
mistake owing to parallax error and/or inaccurate aim.
Instead, driver circuit 36 uses the selected position relative
to the representative positions of the keys to determine
possible candidates (candidate keys) for the desired symbol.
Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

5 

It also uses the offset between the selected position and the
representative positions of the candidate keys and predictive
word input technology to derive a list of candidate words.

(Chua 2 ¶ 0023).
3. Figure 3 of Chua is reproduced below:

“FIG. 3 is a close up of an area of a display” (Chua 1 ¶ 0013).
4. Chua teaches that:
FIG. 3 is a close up of an area of the virtual keyboard
20. This area is roughly centred on the letter keys for “t”,
“y”, “g” and “h”, each with its own representative position
50t, 50y, 50g, 50h. Assuming the user touches the screen 12
at the point 52, marked with an X, he may, indeed, have
wanted to select the letter “h”, as the selected position 52
falls within the display area 54h for that letter. On the other
hand, he may have been aiming at the “t”, “y”, or “g” key
and missed. After all, the selected position 52 is only just on
the “h” key and, due to the staggered alignment of the rows
of keys, is actually closer to the centre of the “y” key than to
Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

6 

the centre of the “h” key. It is also not much further away
from the centres of the “t” and “g” keys.

(Chua 2 ¶ 0024).
5. Figure 9a of Davidson is reproduced below:

FIG. 9(a) also illustrates, in dotted lines, areas 542, 544, and
546 that are respectively spaced from the display areas of
control keys 520, 522, and 524 by the predetermined distance r
in every direction. FIG. 9(a) further indicates a touch location
540 that is located within each of the areas 542, 544 and 546.

(Davidson, col. 18, ll. 9-14).

6. Figure 2 of Vargas is reproduced below:

Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

7 

“FIG. 2 is a rendering of a Q[W]ERTY keyboard shown on the touch screen
of a PDA” (Vargas, col. 3, ll. 46-47).
7. Vargas teaches that:
If the contact point on a key is displaced from the
center point of the key struck more than 0.2 times the key
width, the system and method of the present invention
undertake a calculation to determine which character the
user intended to enter. The method of the present invention
begins by determining which two keys adjacent to the struck
key have their center points closest to the contact point.
While more or less than two adjacent keys could be
determined in connection with the present invention, two
additional keys with center points nearest the contact point
appear to provide good character selection results. The two
additional keys with center points nearest the contact point
and the key actually struck are defined as the proximate
keys.
In FIG. 2 for example, keys “S”, “W”, and “E” each
have center points 60, 62, and 64 respectively. If a user
touches the keyboard 22 at a contact point 66 in the upper
part of the “S” key and if the contact point 66 is more tha[n]
0.2 of the width of the key from the center point 60 of the
“S” key, the method of the present invention is called upon
to select a character for entry. The method calculates the
distances from the contact point 66 to the center points of all
of the keys adjacent to the “S” key and selects the two keys,
keys “W” and “E” for example, with the nearest center
points 62 and 64.
After the method of the present invention has selected
the proximate keys “S”, “W”, and “E”, the method then tests
to determine which character represented by those three
proximate keys is the most likely candidate to be entered.
As previously stated, the likelihood of a character being
selected and entered depends on the frequency with which
the character might appear in the text based on previously
entered characters and on the distance between the contact
point and the center point of each of the proximate keys.
Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

8 

(Vargas, col. 5, l. 42 to col. 6, l. 7).
8. Vargas teaches that “there is a need in the art for a small touch
screen keyboard which can be finger accessed and can select the character of
the key intended by the user even if the user misses the key slightly when
touching the screen” (Vargas, col. 1, ll. 43-46).
Principles of Law
“The 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). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417. As noted by the Court in KSR, “[a] person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
550 U.S. at 421.
Analysis
Chua teaches a method on a mobile telephone where “by touching one
of the virtual keys 22 of the virtual keyboard 20, the symbol on that key is
selected” (Chua 2 ¶¶ 0020-0021; FF 1). Chua teaches that the areas for each
symbol overlap, as in the example where point 52, marked with an x, is an
intermediate region where Chua teaches that the user touch may have been
intended for several nearby letters including “h”, “y”, “t”, or “g” (FF 3-4).
Davidson exemplifies the overlapping positions in a diagrammatic way (FF
5).
Chua teaches detecting a location of a user’s touch on the touch
interface and identifying the character(s) associated with that location (FF 1-
2).
Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

9 

The Examiner acknowledges that Chua does not teach, “associating an
area of the touch interface with the first character by joining the centers of
characters nearest to the first character” (Ans. 5).
Vargas teaches that upon touching a contact point, the mobile device
“calculates the distances from the contact point 66 to the center points of all
of the keys adjacent to the “S” key and selects the two keys, keys “W” and
“E” for example, with the nearest center points 62 and 64” (Vargas, col. 5, ll.
61-65; FF 7).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
conclude that the person of ordinary creativity would have predictably
incorporated Vargas’ method of calculating center points of characters (FF
7) with Chua’s method of character selection in overlapping regions (FF 1-4)
because Vargas teaches that “there is a need in the art for a small touch
screen keyboard which can be finger accessed and can select the character of
the key intended by the user even if the user misses the key slightly when
touching the screen” (Vargas, col. 1, ll. 43-46; FF 8). The combination of
Chua and Vargas represents the “predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellant contends that
Chua has no need to also utilize overlapping regions, e.g., to
determine possible candidates. Thus, one of skill in the art
would not look to Chua to teach or suggest at least some
associated areas overlap with one another to form intermediate
regions that represent more than one character, as set forth in
independent claim 1

(App. Br. 11).

Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

10 

We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that “Chua has
shown through his drawings and disclosure associating areas with characters
that can represent more than one character” (Ans. 13). In particular, when
Chua teaches that selection of a particular position 52 may represent any of
four different characters, “h”, “t”, “y”, or “g”, position 52 is reasonably
interpreted as an area of overlap whose selection “represents more than one
character” as required by claim 1.
Appellant contends that “Davidson discloses non-overlapping
extended touch zones for adjacent keys of a virtual keyboard” (App. Br. 11).
Appellant contends that “Davidson teaches away from the features of
independent claim 1 because each extended touch zone is associated with a
single control key, rather than more than one character, and the extended
touch zones do not overlap one another” (App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded. Davidson expressly teaches overlap between
characters, where “FIG. 9(a) further indicates a touch location 540 that is
located within each of the areas 542, 544 and 546” (Davidson, col. 18, ll. 12-
14; FF 5). The Examiner relies upon Davidson simply to provide a pictorial
disclosure of overlapping characters, which is also taught by Chua (FF 2-4),
though not pictorially represented by Chua.
While Davidson’s solution to the problem of overlap differs from that
of Chua and Vargas, Davidson does not teach away from Vargas’ teaching
to calculate “the distances from the contact point 66 to the center points of
all of the keys adjacent to the “S” key and selects the two keys, keys “W”
and “E” for example, with the nearest center points 62 and 64” (Vargas, col.
5, ll. 61-65; FF 7).
Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

11 

Appellant identifies no teaching in Davidson which criticizes,
discourages, or discredits the combination with either Chua or Vargas. See
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere
disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away
from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”).
Appellant contends that:
Vargas does not teach or suggest, for a first character, the
associating comprises associating an area of the touch
interface with the first character by joining the centers of
characters nearest to the first character, as set forth in
independent claim 1. Instead, Vargas teaches calculating
distances from the contact point to the center points of all
the keys adjacent to the struck key and passing the struck
key and the two keys closest to a struck key to a predictive
text engine to determine which character was selected.

(App. Br. 14).
We are not persuaded. The phrase “joining the centers” is used a
single time in the Specification, which teaches that:
In another example, the virtual key of the letter ‘G’ shown in
FIG. 8B is deemed as the area bounded by the lines joining
the centers of the letters nearest to the letter ‘G’. If the
touch location is in the region denoted 821, then the letters
‘G’, ‘T’ and ‘F’ are sent to the predictive text software
module.

(Spec. 11 ¶ 0050). We therefore interpret the phrase “associating an area of
the touch interface with the first character by joining the centers of
characters nearest to the first character” as reasonably reading on methods
which associate or correlate the contact point with the center points of the
nearest adjacent keys.
Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

12 

Vargas teaches the “method calculates the distances from the contact
point 66 to the center points of all of the keys adjacent to the “S” key and
selects the two keys, keys “W” and “E” for example, with the nearest center
points 62 and 64” (Vargas col. 5, ll. 61-65; FF 7).
The Examiner reasonably finds that the
Vargas algorithm for selecting the three proximate keys has the
effect of associating the letters in the middle row (S, D, F, G, H,
J, & K) to an area of the touch screen that is bounded by the
centers of the adjacent keys as described in [0050] of the
present invention.

(Ans. 15).

We agree with the Examiner that Vargas is reasonably interpreted as
suggesting a method of associating areas of the touch interface by
associating the center of characters near the touch point which are nearest to
a particular character as required by claim 1.
Appellant contends that there is “no evidence to suggest a reasonable
expectation of success or even the ability to practice the claims of the
present application given any combination of Chua, Davidson, and Vargas”
(App. Br. 16).
We are not persuaded. Appellant provides no evidence suggesting
any unpredictability or difficulty whatsoever in combining the disclosures of
Chua, Davidson, and Vargas. In the absence of any unpredictability, there
would be at least a reasonable expectation that the ordinary artisan would
have been able to incorporate the association method of Vargas into the
touch screen methods of Chua and Davidson. There is virtually no
unpredictability whatsoever in performing this substitution. Kubin stated
that, “[r]esponding to concerns about uncertainty in the prior art influencing
Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

13 

the purported success of the claimed combination, this court [in O’Farrell]
stated: ‘[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . .
all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”’ In re Kubin,
561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Appellant recites the limitations of claims 6, 22, 34, and 38, but
provides no further argument. Merely stating the different limitations of
dependent claims does not constitute separate argument. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(c) (7); In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1340 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(Although Dance mentions the content of the dependent claims, he does not
argue their merits separately from those of independent claim 33, or attempt
to distinguish them from the prior art. Nor were the dependent claims
argued separately before the Board. Therefore, all claims stand or fall
together with claim 33).

Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Chua, Davidson, and Vargas render claim 1 obvious.

B. and C. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant does not separately argue the claims in these obviousness
rejections. Having affirmed the obviousness rejection of Claim 1 over Chua,
Davidson, and Vargas, we also find that the further combinations with Moon
and Robinson render the remaining claims obvious for the reasons given by
the Examiner (see Ans. 10-12).

Appeal 2011-004662
Application 10/787,315

14 

SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Chua, Davidson, and Vargas. Pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 3-7, 9, 10, 12,
15, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, 35, and 38, as these claims were not argued
separately.
We affirm the rejection of claims 8, 11, 24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Chua, Davidson, Vargas, and Moon.
We affirm the rejection of claims 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Chua, Davidson, Vargas, and Robinson.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

dm