Ex Parte HUHDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201614107504 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016) 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. 14/107,504 12/16/2013 Jung-Chul HUH 0202-0009-1 1065 12/20/201668103 7590 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER KARIMI, PEGEMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2016 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): u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUNG-CHUL HUH Appeal 2016-001259 Application 14/107,504 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOVAN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Dec. 16, 2013 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed Dec. 3, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed May 4, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 3, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 3, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2016-001259 Application 14/107,504 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to inputting characters using a touch screen in a portable terminal. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below with argued language emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of inputting characters in a portable terminal, comprising the steps of: displaying a plurality of characters on a keyboard; detecting a touch on the keyboard; displaying one character corresponding to a key corresponding to the touch on the keyboard as enlarged relative to other characters upon detecting the touch; displaying another character corresponding to a key corresponding to a touch move on the keyboard as enlarged relative to the other characters on the keyboard upon detecting the touch-move without a release of the touch; displaying the character, which is displayed enlarged when detecting the release of the touch, in a character input area upon detecting the release of the touch on the keyboard; and displaying a plurality of recommended words in a vicinity of the keyboard based on characters which have been inputted in the character input area so far, at least one of the plurality of recommended words comprising the characters which have been inputted so far in the character input area. (App. Br. 8 — Claims App’x.) REJECTION Claims 1—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kushler (US 7,098,896 B2, Aug. 29, 2006) and Heikkinen (US 6,073,036, June 6, 2000). (Final Act. 2-5.) 2 Appeal 2016-001259 Application 14/107,504 ANALYSIS Claim 1 Appellant argues Kushler does not disclose displaying a plurality of recommended words in a vicinity of the keyboard as claimed. (App. Br. 3— 6, Reply Br. 2—3.) Specifically, Appellant contends Kushler’s mobile terminal displays recommended words in selection list 2208 at the text input point, where the next word will be displayed, as shown below in Kushler Figure 2B. Appellant argues that Kushler does not show the selection list 2208 is displayed in a vicinity of the keyboard. Figure 2B of Kushler shows a mobile terminal with a text display region 2016 having a selection list 2208 of recommended words, and a keyboard 2104. 3 Appeal 2016-001259 Application 14/107,504 In contrast to Kushler, Appellant contends Figure 7 A of their Specification, shown below, displays the recommended word list, which comprises the word ‘friend’, appearing just above the virtual keyboard. (App. Br. 5.) Appellant contends Figure 7A is an example of displaying the recommended words in the vicinity of the keyboard whereas Kushler shows the selection list of recommended words at the text input point. Figure 7 A of the Specification shows the recommended word list above the keyboard. To the contrary, the Examiner finds that Kushler teaches the claimed limitation. (Final Act. 3, Ans. 9—10.) The Examiner states the term “vicinity” means proximity according to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (Ans. 9) The Examiner finds that Kushler’s selection list 2208 of 4 Appeal 2016-001259 Application 14/107,504 recommended words is displayed in proximity to the keyboard 2104. (Id.) The Examiner further finds that Appellant does not describe the location of the displayed recommended word and does not mention the displayed area is directly above the keyboard or the displayed recommended word area is in a fixed location above characters U, I, O, P, as shown in Figure 7A of the Specification. (Id.) Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Reviewing the Specification in this case, the term “vicinity” is not mentioned: it appears only in the claims. In the absence of any definition in the Specification, the Examiner properly construed the term broadly and reasonably to find, for example, that Figure 2B shows selection list 2208 of recommended words in the vicinity of the keyboard 2104, within the meaning of the claim. We also note that Kushler, Figure 2B, implies that if the user continues inputting text via the keyboard, the selection list 2208 of recommended words will continue moving downward with the input text until eventually reaching a point just above the keyboard. Even under Appellant’s interpretation, this circumstance would result in the selection list 2208 displayed in the vicinity of the keyboard 2104, thus disclosing the claimed limitation. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Kushler at least suggests the argued feature of the claim. Remaining Claims No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent claims and therefore we sustain their rejection for the reasons previously 5 Appeal 2016-001259 Application 14/107,504 stated. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation