Ex Parte Kamiyabu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2015

11971721 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MITSURU KAMIYABU
____________

Appeal 2012-010764
Application 11/971,7211
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
ELIZABETH A. LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

On appeal are the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–21.
(Br. 2; Ans. 3.) An oral hearing was held on January 6, 2015. Appellant
seeks reversal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The Specification describes a portable terminal into which a plurality
of character types can be entered, recorded, and processed. (Spec. 1, ll. 10–

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sharp Kabushiki
Kaisha. (Br. 1.)
Appeal 2012-010764
Application 11/971,721

2
12.) For example, the Specification explains that using multiple character
types may be necessary to enable a mobile phone to enter kana (Japanese
syllabic characters) as well as numbers and letters of the (Roman) alphabet.
(See id. at 1, ll. 14–21.) Claim 1 is representative:
1. A portable information terminal, comprising:
a display unit;
an operation unit having a first operation key and a second
operation key for allowing a user to perform an operation for
character entry, and a third operation key;
a control unit for controlling processing for said character entry;
and
a storage unit storing at least one second character type array
table for displaying in a listed manner a plurality of characters
included in said second character type, and storing at least one
third character type array table for displaying in a listed manner
a plurality of characters included in a third character type,
wherein
said control unit includes a display control unit for causing said
display unit to display a first region and a second region,
said first region corresponds to an entry standby display in a
character entry state of a first character type via said first
operation key, and said second region corresponds to a display
for character entry in a character entry state of a second
character type via said second operation key,
said control unit further includes an entry control unit accepting
entry of a character of said first character type or said second
character type in accordance with said first operation key or
said second operation key, while maintaining the character
entry state of said first character type and the character entry
state of said second character type, and
in the character entry state of said first character type, if an
operation via said third operation key in a first manner is
accepted, said display control unit causes any of said at least
Appeal 2012-010764
Application 11/971,721

3
one second character type array table to be displayed, and if an
operation via said third operation key in a second manner is
accepted, said display control unit causes any of said at least
one third character type array table to be displayed, and
wherein in the character entry state of said first character type,
the characters displayed in said second character type array
table and said third character type array table are characters that
are not associated with the keys of the first operation key.
(Br. 18–19 (Claims App.).)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1–4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, and 19–21 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kraft,2 in view of
Balakrishnan3 and Nelson.4 (Ans. 4.)
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kraft, in view of Balakrishnan and Nelson, and further in view of
The Unicode Standard, Version 3.2.5 (Ans. 17.)
3. Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kraft, in view of Balakrishnan and Nelson, and
further in view of Sasaki.6 (Ans. 18.)

2 U.S. Patent No. US 6,487,424 B1, issued Nov. 26, 2002.
3 U.S. Patent No. 5,952,942, issued Sept. 14, 1999.
4 U.S. Patent No. US 6,987,991 B2, issued Jan. 17, 2006.
5 The Unicode Standard, Version 3.2, Halfwidth and Fullwidth Forms,
Range: FF00–FFEF (2002).
6 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2006/0170651 A1, published Aug. 3,
2006.
Appeal 2012-010764
Application 11/971,721

4
4. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kraft, in view of Balakrishnan and Nelson, and further in view of
Burner.7 (Ans. 19.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, as set forth
on pages 4–20 of the Answer. We note the following for emphasis.
Kraft describes a method for entering data into a portable phone to
enable faster entry of different character types, “such as normal text entry,
calculator entry, music entry, and entry of Chinese signs.” (Kraft col. 1, ll.
47–48.) The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Kraft’s alphanumeric keys,
roller key, and asterisk key function as first, second, and third operation
keys. (Ans. 4 (citing Kraft Fig. 1; col. 7, ll. 51–53).) Further, Kraft teaches
a “second character type array table” through its lists of upper-case and
lower-case letters, and a “third character type array table” through its
“special character list.” (Ans. 5 (citing Kraft col. 7, ll. 17–20, 51).)
Although Kraft teaches these and other aspects of claim 1, the
Examiner finds that Kraft fails to disclose the last two limitations of claim 1,
i.e., while in the character entry state of the first character type, (1) the
operation of a third operation key in a first manner to cause display of a
second character type array table, and in a second manner to cause display of
a third character type array table, and (2) that the characters displayed in the
second and third character type array tables are characters that are not
associated with the keys of the first operation key. (Ans. 7, 8.) For these
elements, the Examiner turns, respectively, to Balakrishnan and Nelson.

7 U.S. Patent No. US 6,282,548 B1, issued Aug. 28, 2001.
Appeal 2012-010764
Application 11/971,721

5
Balakrishnan teaches a method and apparatus for inputting text
messages using a numeric keypad. (Balakrishnan col. 1, ll. 5–8.)
Balakrishnan describes using a “press/hold manner” to allow a user to enter
numbers and Roman letters, and to switch among modes, for example to
allow the user to enter characters, punctuation, or other symbols in Chinese.
(Id. at col. 9, l. 33–col. 10, ll. 5.) Thus, the Examiner explains that
“Balakrishnan teaches using a long-pressing on a key to switch from one
character set to the next, where the character set may be displayed on the
screen.” (Ans. 7.) “[M]odify[ing] the table based character entry system
taught by Kraft to include the long press character set selection method of
Balakrishnan in order to obtain a table based character entry system with
long press character set selection” would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. (Id. at 8.) Motivation
for the combination would have come from the desire to “reduce the number
of keys used when selecting a character type.” (Id.)
Nelson generally relates to inputting emoticons into text messages.
(Nelson Abstract.) The Examiner finds that in Nelson, “the character arrays
displayed by a third input key are not associated with the first input key as
they are selected and added to the text string through the third input key
alone.” (Ans. 8 (citing Nelson col. 4, ll. 2–6, 39–42, 51–56).)
Combining Nelson with Kraft and Balakrishnan would have been
obvious, the Examiner explains, “to obtain a table based character entry
system with long press character set selection and single key character
input.” (Ans. 9.) The motivation to do so would have been to “reduce the
number of keys used when selecting a specific character.” (Id.)
Appeal 2012-010764
Application 11/971,721

6
DISCUSSION
A. Rejection 1
We begin by noting that Appellant argues claims 1, 20, and 21
together, and focuses on claim 1. (Br. 10–12.) Appellant also recites the
limitations of claim 6, but offers no argument except to say that the cited
references “fail to teach at least the features of claim 6 in combination with
claim 1.” (Id. at 12.) This assertion fails to point out with particularity why
the limitations of claim 6 are separately patentable. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”). Similarly, Appellant notes the limitations of claim
17 (albeit in regard to Rejection 4, which does not apply to claim 17, rather
than Rejection 1), but does not offer any further analysis of that claim. (Br.
13.) No other claims are separately argued as to this rejection in Appellant’s
Brief. Accordingly, we treat claim 1 as representative of all of the claims
subject to Rejection 1, see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), and address
Appellant’s three briefed arguments regarding the patentability of claim 1 in
turn.
First, Appellant argues that Kraft teaches one character type array
table, and one input mode, but not displaying a character type array table for
plural input modes. (Br. 10–11.) Specifically, Appellant asserts that Kraft’s
first display part displays “entered” information, while Kraft’s second
display part displays a string of “possible information candidates.” (Id. at 10
(quoting Kraft col. 5, ll. 33–36).) This second display part in Kraft,
Appeal 2012-010764
Application 11/971,721

7
according to Appellant, is not for a separate input mode. (Id.) The
Examiner responds that Kraft teaches both displaying an array of characters
for the user to select to input into a message (Ans. 22 (citing Kraft col. 6, ll.
1–9)), and that the array of characters can be changed from, for example,
upper to lower case letters, depending on the selected language (id. (citing
Kraft col. 7, ll. 15–21).)
We agree with the Examiner’s position. As the Examiner notes, Kraft
teaches multiple character type array tables through its lists of, for example,
upper-case and lower-case letters, as well as special characters. (See Ans. 5
(citing Kraft col. 7, ll. 17–20, 51).) Thus, Kraft contemplates multiple
modes for entry of different types of characters, and further contemplates
use of characters from various languages. (See supra at 4; Kraft col. 2, ll.
19–26.) Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that
“Kraft teaches a character type array table (i.e. the different list containing
different characters) for plural input modes (i.e. the upper case and lower
case modes).” (Ans. 22.)
Second, Appellant argues that Balakrishnan’s alphabet mode and
numeric mode do not constitute display of second and third character type
array tables by the display control unit. (Br. 11.) The Examiner responds
that Kraft “teaches a manner of changing the display of character input
tables based on the mode selected. Balakrishnan, on the other hand, teaches
changing input modes by pressing and holding a key for a predetermined
time.” (Ans. 23.)
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant’s second argument amounts
to a critique of Balakrishnan individually rather than the combination of
references cited by the Examiner for the claimed limitations, and is thus
Appeal 2012-010764
Application 11/971,721

8
unpersuasive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“But one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as
here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). Moreover,
we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kraft and Balakrishnan
“provides a method of changing the list of characters (i.e. the claim character
type array tables) displayed by the input mode as taught by Kraft where the
input mode is changed by pressing a key in two different time-based
manners as taught by Balakrishnan.” (Ans. 23.)
Third, Appellant asserts that neither Kraft nor Balakrishnan discloses
display of a second or third character type array table based on operation of
a third operation key in a first or a second manner. (Br. 12.) As we have
already explained in addressing Appellant’s first and second arguments, we
agree with the Examiner that Kraft and Balakrishnan together teach display
of a second or third character type array table. As for this display being
based on the operation of a third operation key in a first or second manner,
we agree with the Examiner that Balakrishnan “teaches changing input
modes by pressing and holding a key for a predetermined time.” (Ans. 24.)
As the Examiner acknowledges, Balakrishnan teaches display of characters
in a “set cyclical order.” (Id.) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, however,
this distinction between Balakrishnan and claim 1 does not impair the prima
facie case of obviousness because the Examiner does not rely specifically on
this mechanism of Balakrishnan. Rather, the Examiner relies on
Balakrishnan for the broader teaching of changing input modes through
pressing and holding a key, thus creating “[m]ultiple manners of interacting
with a key.” (Ans. 24.) The combination of Kraft and Balakrishnan, then,
teaches:
Appeal 2012-010764
Application 11/971,721

9
[I]f an operation via said third operation key in a first manner
(i.e. selection of a key that is released during the timeframe a
character is displayed as taught by Balakrishnan) is accepted,
said display control unit causes any of said at least one second
character type array table to be displayed (i.e. the character
table changes the list displayed to be that of the chosen first
mode as taught by Kraft), and if an operation via said third
operation key in a second manner (i.e. selection of a key that is
released during the timeframe a number is displayed as taught
by Balakrishnan) is accepted, said display control unit causes
any of said at least one third character type array table to be
displayed (i.e. the character table changes the list displayed to
be that of the second mode as taught by Kraft).
(Ans. 25.)
Having fully considered each of Appellant’s arguments regarding
claim 1, and having found none to be persuasive, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Claims 2–4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–15, 17, and 19–21 fall
with claim 1.
B. Rejections 2 and 3
As Appellant presents no separate arguments regarding these
rejections or the affected claims, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 9, 12, and 18.
C. Rejection 4
Appellant’s argument regarding the patentability of claim 16 consists
of pointing out support in the Specification for the claim, and the following
statement: “Appellant submits that Kraft, Balakrishnan, Nelson, and Burner,
either alone or in combination, fail to disclose features recited in claim 16, in
combination with claim 1.” (Br. 13.) As noted above with respect to claim
6, such a statement is insufficient to point out with particularity why the
limitations of claim 16 are separately patentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37; see
Appeal 2012-010764
Application 11/971,721

10
also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–21 are affirmed for the reasons of
record. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

cdc