Ex Parte HUH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2016

14107504 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016)

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