Tan, Weihua et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 8, 201914551311 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2019) 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. 14/551,311 11/24/2014 Weihua Tan 16113-2779002 3445 26192 7590 11/08/2019 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER FLORES, ROBERTO W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/08/2019 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WEIHUA TAN and QILIANG CHEN Appeal 2019-000355 Application 14/551,311 Technology Center 2600 Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MICHAEL T. CYGAN, and JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21, 25–29, 33–36, 38, and 40–44. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-000355 Application 14/551,311 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to selection of text that is displayed on a touchscreen display device. Spec. ¶ 5. By physically contacting the touchscreen and performing particular gestures, the user may select text. In response to a user’s contact with the touchscreen, the computer may indicate an “intermediate location,” that is, a location on the touchscreen that is separated by text characters from the location of the user’s physical contact. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9. The computer then determines whether the user performs a swipe that extends from the original contact location past the intermediate location. Id. ¶ 10. If the swipe does not pass the intermediate location, the text selection is cancelled. Id. ¶¶ 10, 77. If the swipe passes the intermediate location, and then continues by reversing direction to stop at an ending location that is between the original contact location and the intermediate location, the text between the original contact location and the ending location is selected. Id. ¶ 78. Independent claim 21 is illustrative, with limitations at issue italicized for emphasis: 21. A computer-implemented method, comprising: identifying, by a computing device, that a first physical contact contacted a touchscreen display at a first starting location; determining, by the computing device in response to having identified that the first physical contact contacted the touchscreen display at the first starting location, a first intermediate location on the touchscreen display by determining a location that is a predetermined distance from the first starting location along a first line of multiple words of text, wherein the predetermined distance from the first starting location is at least multiple characters away from the first starting location along the first line of multiple words of text; Appeal 2019-000355 Application 14/551,311 3 determining, by the computing device, that the first physical contact remained in contact with the touchscreen display without releasing from contact with the touchscreen display during: - movement of the first physical contact from the first starting location to a location past the first intermediate location which is at least multiple characters away from the first starting location, so that the first physical contact is no longer contacting the touchscreen display between the first starting location and the first intermediate location, and - movement of the first physical contact from the location past the first intermediate location back to a first ending location on the touchscreen display that is between the first starting location and the first intermediate location, so that the first physical contact is once again contacting the touchscreen display between the first starting location and the first intermediate location; identifying, by the computing device responsive to having determined that the first physical contact has released from contact with the touchscreen display at the first ending location, after the first physical contact has moved passed the first intermediate location and then moved back to the first ending location, text displayed by the touchscreen display between the first starting location and the first ending location as text that has been selected by the first physical contact; identifying, by the computing device, that a second physical contact contacted the touchscreen display at a second starting location; identifying, by the computing device and in response to having identified that the second physical contact contacted the touchscreen display at the second starting location, a second intermediate location on the touchscreen display by identifying a location that is a predetermined distance from the second starting location along a second line of multiple words of text, wherein the predetermined distance from the second starting Appeal 2019-000355 Application 14/551,311 4 location is at least multiple characters away from the second starting location along the second line of multiple words; determining, by the computing device, that the second physical contact remained in contact with the touchscreen display without releasing from contact with the touchscreen display during: - movement of the second physical contact from the second starting location to a second ending location on the touchscreen display that is between the second starting location and the second intermediate location which is at least multiple characters away from the second starting location along the second line of multiple words of text, so that the second physical contact is contacting the touchscreen display between the second starting location and the second intermediate location; and cancelling, by the computing device responsive to having determined that the second physical contact has released from contact with the touchscreen display at the second ending location, text selection as a result of the computing device determining that the second physical contact did not reach the second intermediate location that is at least multiple characters away from the second starting location along the second line of multiple words of text before releasing from contact with the touchscreen display. Independent claim 29 recites a computer-readable medium, having limitations commensurate in scope with claim 21. Dependent claims 25–28, 33–36, 38, and 40–44 each incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims. Claims 1–20, 22–24, 30–32, 37, and 39 have been cancelled. Final Act. 1. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Davis et al. (Davis) US 2011/0310026 A1 Dec. 22, 2011 Filed June 18, 2010 Appeal 2019-000355 Application 14/551,311 5 Lee et al. (Lee) US 2010/0110017 A1 May 6, 2010 REJECTION Claims 21, 25–29, 33–36, 38, and 40–44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Davis in view of Lee. OPINION With respect to claim 21, the Examiner has determined that Davis teaches or suggests each limitation except for an intermediate location that is located a predetermined distance from a first starting location, and for cancelling a selection of text responsive to a determination that a second physical contact did not reach a second intermediate location, both of which the Examiner has determined are taught or suggested by Lee. Final Act. 3– 7. Appellant first argues that the combination of Davis and Lee does not teach determining, by the computing device in response to having identified that the first physical contact contacted the touchscreen display at the first starting location, a first intermediate location on the touchscreen display by determining a location that is a predetermined distance from the first starting location along a first line of multiple words of text, wherein the predetermined distance from the first starting location is at least multiple characters away from the first starting location along the first line of multiple words of text. Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant argues that neither Davis nor Lee teach an intermediate location that is a predetermined distance from the first starting location. Id. at 16–17 (citing Davis Fig. 1). Appellant argues that, as admitted by the Examiner, Davis does not teach an intermediate location that is a predetermined distance from the first starting Appeal 2019-000355 Application 14/551,311 6 location and meets the other requirements set forth in the claims (i.e., that text is selected when a finger is dragged across that intermediate location, in first a forward and then a reverse direction). Id. at 17. Appellant further argues that Lee does not disclose that the location of the selection area is determined in response to the user’s physical contact with a starting location on the touchscreen. Id. (citing Lee ¶ 47). We find these arguments persuasive. As characterized by the Examiner, Davis teaches that, for a line of text displayed on a touchscreen as “I’ll be home after work,” a user may use their finger to first contact the touchscreen at “I’ll,” causing “I’ll” to be selected. Final Act. 3 (citing Davis Fig. 3A). The user may then drag their finger across the text, such as to the word “after,” which causes the selection area to move relative to the current position of the finger, such as to the word “work.” Final Act. 3–4 (citing Davis Fig. 3A, 6A, ¶ 36), Ans. 4–5, Davis Fig. 3B. A word will not be selected if the finger does not reach the intermediate location, which may be set at a predefined distance before the word. Ans. 4–5 (citing Davis ¶ 39, Figs. 3A–3C). However, the Examiner has determined that Davis “does not appear to specifically disclose an intermediate location that is located a predetermined distance” from the point of first contact with the touchscreen. Final Act. 6. We agree with both Examiner and Appellant that Davis does not teach or suggest an intermediate location located a predetermined distance from the point of first contact, so as to meet the limitations set forth in claim 21. With respect to Lee, the Examiner relies upon Lee’s graphical interface for selecting characters to populate a text box, as illustrated by Figures 5 through 8 of Lee. Final Act. 6–7, Ans. 5–6. As characterized by Appeal 2019-000355 Application 14/551,311 7 the Examiner, Lee teaches individual letters arranged around a central selection area, wherein a user may contact the touchscreen at the location of a letter and then drag their finger to the selection area, causing the letter to be entered in the text box. Id.; see also Lee Figs. 5–8, ¶¶ 47, 51, 54, 62. The Examiner characterizes Lee as teaching “an intermediate location that is located a predetermined distance,” but not that Lee determines the intermediate location by determining a location that is a predetermined distance from a first physical contact with the touchscreen, as required by claim 21. Final Act. 6–7, Ans. 5–6. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Lee does not teach such a limitation, which is supported by Lee’s character display area having characters arranged at a spaced distance around the selection area without mention of positioning the characters at any particular spaced distance in response to a user’s physical contact. Appeal Br. 16–17; Lee ¶ 47. We are also persuaded that the combination of Davis and Lee does not teach or suggest the limitation at issue. In explaining what the combination of Davis and Lee teaches or suggests, the Examiner states that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious “to not identify text before the physical contact has reached or passed the intermediate location as taught by Lee into Davis with the benefit that touch event should be selected only if it fall within a selection area.” Final Act. 7. However, this statement does not explain how the combination of Lee and Davis teaches or suggests determining an intermediate location in the claimed manner, i.e., by determining a location that is a predetermined distance from a first physical contact with the touchscreen. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Davis and Appeal 2019-000355 Application 14/551,311 8 Lee teaches or suggests that limitation. Because that limitation appears in claims 25–29, 33–36, 38, and 40–44, we are further persuaded of error in the obviousness rejection of those claims as well. CONCLUSION For the above-described reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 25–29, 33–36, 38, and 40–44 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 21, 25–29, 33–36, 38, 40–44 103 Davis, Lee 21, 25–29, 33–36, 38, 40–44 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation