Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2021

2020006613 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2021)

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.
14/090,010 11/26/2013 Arnold S. Weksler RPS920130133USNP(710.282) 6840
58127 7590 12/23/2021
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
BADAWI, ANGIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ARNOLD S. WEKSLER, RUSSELL SPEIGHT VANBLON,
JOHN CARL MESE, and NATHAN J. PETERSON
____________________

Appeal 2020 -006613
Application No. 14/090,0101
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention concerns emoticon generation and insertion into
a messaging application. The inventive method includes detecting a trigger
event for insertion of an emoticon is detected; providing an emoticon that is

1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Lenovo (Singapore) PTE.
LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 3 and 13 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-006613
Application No. 14/090,010
2
not the image of a user; and inserting the emoticon into the text portion of
the chat application. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
detecting, at an information handling device, a trigger event
for insertion of an emoticon into a messaging application;

selecting the emoticon from a stock emoticon group
via analyzing an underlying context of an active
conversation in the messaging application;
capturing, with an optical sensor of the information
handling device, a gesture input provided by a user, wherein
the gesture input is a non-touch gesture;
modifying, using a processor and prior to inputting the
selected emoticon into the messaging application, an aspect
of the emoticon based on the gesture input; and
thereafter inserting, using the processor, the modified
emoticon into the active conversation of the messaging
application;
wherein the emoticon is not the image of the user or a
cartoon version of the user.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Appeal 2020-006613
Application No. 14/090,010
3
Name Reference Date
Dahan et al.
hereinafter
“Dahan”
US 2006/0009243 A1 Jan. 12, 2006
Olsson et al.
hereinafter
“Olsson”
US 2009/0110246 A1 Apr. 30, 2009
Cripps US 2013/0147701 A1 June 13, 2013
Kulas US 2013/0147933 A1 June 13, 2013
Sosinski US 2013/0227472 A1 Aug. 29, 2013
Yuen et al.
hereinafter
“Yuen”
US 2014/0156762 A1 June 5, 2014

Claims 1, 2, 9–12, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kulas, Olsson, and Cripps.
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kulas, Olsson, Cripps, and Sosinski.
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kulas, Olsson, Cripps, Sosinski, and Dahan.
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kulas, Olsson, Cripps, Sosinski, Dahan, and Yuen.
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kulas, Olsson, Cripps, and Yuen.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed June 15, 2020), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept.
18, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 24, 2020) for
their respective details.
Appeal 2020-006613
Application No. 14/090,010
4
ISSUE
1. Does the combination of Kulas, Olsson, and Cripps teach or
suggest inserting an emoticon that is not the image of the user or a cartoon
version of the user?
2. Does the combination of Kulas, Olsson, and Cripps teach or suggest
capturing, with an optical sensor of an information handling device, a non-
touch gesture input provided by a user?
3. Does the combination of Kulas, Olsson, and Cripps teach or suggest
selecting an emoticon via analyzing an underlying context of an active
conversation in the messaging application?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 9–12, 19, and 20
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, insertion of an emoticon
into a messaging application, wherein the emoticon is not the image of the
user; selecting the emoticon to be inserted via analyzing an underlying
context of an active conversation in the messaging application; and
capturing a gesture input provided by a user, wherein the gesture input is a
non-touch gesture. Independent claims 11 and 20 recite analogous
limitations.
Appellant first argues that Kulas does not teach or suggest that the
emoticon to be inserted is not the image of the user. Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it is not germane to the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds that Kulas does not teach this
limitation, and finds that Olsson, rather than Kulas, teaches that “when the
user’s emotion is determined to be within the emotional category of ‘happy’
30a, the display rendering (as represented by rendering 17a) comprises a
rendering of text message media 22a with a smiley face emoticon.” Ans. 25;
Appeal 2020-006613
Application No. 14/090,010
5
Olsson ¶ 41. Alternately, when the user’s emotion is determined to be in the
“angry” category, an angry face emoticon is selected. Olsson ¶ 42.
Second, Appellant asserts that Kulas fails to teach or suggest that the
gesture input is a non-touch gesture. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s argument is
also not persuasive because it is also not germane to the Examiner’s
rejection. The Examiner finds that Kulas does not meet this claim limitation,
further finding that Cripps, rather than Kulas, teaches front facing camera
253 that may be used to capture movement of a subject (such as a user’s
head). Mobile electronic device 201 may then determine whether the
movement of the subject corresponds to a predetermined gesture (such as a
predetermined facial gesture). Ans. 27; Cripps ¶ 33.
Third, Appellant contends that Olsson does not teach or suggest
selecting an emoticon by analyzing an underlying context of an active
conversation. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues that Olsson first captures an
image of a user’s face, and then analyze that image to determine an emotion
the user expressed in the image. Appeal Br. 13, citing Olsson ¶¶ 7-11, 38,
40-43, Fig. 2.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error. The Examiner finds
that Olsson teaches capturing an image when the user commences input of
message media or at any time during user input. Olsson ¶ 11. The Examiner
finds that such message media may comprise email, SMS text, or MMS text,
and an emotional indicator may include an emoticon. The Examiner further
finds that “capturing an image and inserting in a messaging application when
the user is commencing input teaches an active conversation. The emotional
indicator includes an emoticon.” Ans. 28 (emphasis omitted).
Further, the Examiner finds that Olsson teaches that “[t]he selection of
a cultural variation for use in rendering of media content 22 on the display
Appeal 2020-006613
Application No. 14/090,010
6
(and/or transmitted as an emotional indicator 31 to a remote device) may be
based on user demographic data determined by . . . [e.g.,] data input by the
user.” Olsson ¶ 49. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that, taking the
teachings of Olsson together, Olsson teaches selecting an emoticon via
analyzing an active conversation (¶ 11) and determining what to display via
analyzing the underlying context of a conversation (¶ 49). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that Olsson teaches the “selecting the emoticon . . . via
analyzing an underlying content of an active conversation” limitation of the
claims under appeal.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 9–12, 19, and 20 over Kulas,
Olsson, and Cripps.
Claims 4–8 and 14–18
Appellants do not present separate argument for the patentability of
these dependent claims. Therefore, for the reasons expressed supra
regarding independent claims 1 and 11, we sustain the § 103 rejection of:
claims 4 and 14 over Kulas, Olsson, Cripps, and Sosinski;
claims 5 and 15 over Kulas, Olsson, Cripps, Sosinski, and Dahan;
claims 6 and 16 over Kulas, Olsson, Cripps, Sosinski, Dahan, and
Yuen; and
claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 over Kulas, Olsson, Cripps, and Yuen.
CONCLUSION
1. The combination of Kulas, Olsson, and Cripps teaches inserting an
emoticon that is not the image of the user or a cartoon version of the user.
Appeal 2020-006613
Application No. 14/090,010
7
2. The combination of Kulas, Olsson, and Cripps teaches capturing,
with an optical sensor of an information handling device, a non-touch
gesture input provided by a user.
3. The combination of Kulas, Olsson, and Cripps suggests selecting an
emoticon via analyzing an underlying context of an active conversation in
the messaging application.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 9-12, 19,
20
103 Kulas, Olsson,
Cripps
1, 2, 9–12, 19,
20

4, 14 103 Kulas, Olsson,
Cripps, Sosinski
4, 14
5, 15 103 Kulas, Olsson,
Cripps, Sosinski,
Dahan
5, 15
6, 16 103 Kulas, Olsson,
Cripps, Sosinski,
Dahan, Yuen
6, 16
7, 8, 17, 18 103 Kulas, Olsson,
Cripps, Yuen
7, 8, 17, 18
Overall
Result
1, 2, 4–12, 14–
20

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–20 is
affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2013).
Appeal 2020-006613
Application No. 14/090,010
8

AFFIRMED