Ex Parte Kim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 21, 201612267388 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/267,388 11/07/2008 127226 7590 07/25/2016 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP P.O. Box 747 Falls Church, VA 22040-0747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR TaeHunKIM 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. 0465-1681PUS2 6017 EXAMINER ABDIN, SHAHEDA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2692 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2016 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): mailroom@bskb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAE HUN KIM, BOEM YOUNG WOO, JEONG HYUK YOON, HYUN JU AHN, SEUNG SOOK HAN, JUN SERK PARK, and HO SANG CHEON1 Appeal2015-000126 Application 12/267,388 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8. Claims 1 and 4 are independent. Claims 2 and 5 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LG ELECTRONICS INC. See Appeal Brief 1. 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed Nov. 7, 2008 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed Mar. 25, 2013; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Mar. 20, 2014; (4) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed July 18, 2014; and (5) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed Sept. 18, 2014. Appeal2015-000126 Application 12/267,388 BACKGROl.J1'-JD According to Appellants, the application relates to an electronic device including a touch screen in which a function such as deleting text or cut and paste may be performed based on a number of simultaneous touches. Spec. 2 and 10. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A terminal comprising: a touch-screen display configured to be touched by a user; and a controller configured to determine a portion of the touch-screen display that is touch-dragged by the user and to generate a delete signal to delete text data associated with the portion of the touch-screen display that is touch-dragged by the user, wherein the text data comprises a message service text data, wherein the controller is further configured to display a delete soft key to be selected by the user to delete the text data; wherein the controller is further configured to determine both the portion of the touchscreen display based on a single straight-line trajectory along which the user touch-drags and whether to delete the text data associated with the determined portion of the touch-screen display based on a direction of the same single straight-line trajectory, and wherein the delete soft key is separated from the text data and is displayed as pop-up delete soft key. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Garside et al. ("Garside") US 2006/0210163 A 1 Sept. 21, 2006 2 Appeal2015-000126 Application 12/267,388 Fuoss et al. ("Fuoss") Martin et al. ("Martin") US 7,224,991 Bl ivfay 29' 2007 US 2007/0139386 Al June 21, 2007 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuoss in view of Garside and further in view of Martin. Final Act. 2. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and issues raised by the Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Fuoss, Garside, and Martin teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1? DISCUSSION Preliminary Matters Appellants contend the Examiner's objection to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6- 8 is in error. Appeal Br. 8. We do not address the merits of the objection because the Examiner's objection is a petitionable matter-not an appealable matter. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.113(a), 1.181; see also MPEP § 2163 .06(II) and MPEP § 706.01 ("[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to objections and formal matters which are not properly before the Board."). 3 In the event of further prosecution, we suggest the Examiner consider whether there is proper antecedent basis for "the same single straight-line trajectory," as recited in line 12 of claim 1. 3 Appeal2015-000126 Application 12/267,388 35 U.S. C. § 103: Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6---8 After review of Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings and reasoning, we determine that Appellants have not identified error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. See Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 4--5. We add the following for emphasis. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies upon Garside' s single stroke scratch-out gesture to teach or suggest the disputed features. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that in employing Garside' s single stroke scratch-out gesture to delete text, the gesture "must follow a direction of the same single straight-line trajectory." Ans. 4--5 citing Figs. 7B and 9 of Garside. Appellants contend that in Garside there is "no constraint on direction of strokes" and, thus, "the command in Garside would be executed regardless of the direction of stroke, which is contrary to the claimed invention." Reply Br. 1-2. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner correctly finds that Garside' s description of deleting text using a single stroke scratch-out gesture in a particular direction suggests "delete the text ... based on a direction of [a] single straight-line trajectory" along which the user touch-drags, as recited in claim 1. That is, Appellants' assertion that "the command in Garside would be executed regardless of the direction of stroke" is incommensurate with the scope of claim 1, which recites deleting text based on a single direction touch drag. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. 4 Appeal2015-000126 Application 12/267,388 Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 6-8. Appeal Br. 8-9. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejections of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuoss, Garside, and Martin is 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