Ex Parte Amineh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

11384210 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

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.
11/384,210 03/17/2006 Romel Amineh 50942-US-PAT 9082
100809 7590 03/30/2017
Core Wireless Licensing Ltd
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 1300
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DENNIS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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):
ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROMEL AMINEH
Appeal 2017-000389
Application 11/384,210
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000389
Application 11/384,210
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 10, 12—17, 20, 22—27, 29, and 31—33.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a user interface that arranges keys
with sub-functions around an actuated key. See Spec. 1:3—4, 2:5—11.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
1. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, the
at least one memory and the computer program code configured
to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to
perform:
provide for display of a touch keypad on a touch sensitive
display, comprising an original set of keys,
1 In the Amendment submitted on April 2, 2015, after the Final Rejection,
Appellant renumbered claims 19, 21—26, 28, and 30-32 as claims 20, 22—27,
29, 31—33, respectively. In the Advisory Action dated April 14, 2015, the
Examiner agreed to enter this amendment and maintained the rejection. On
July 2, 2015, Appellant then filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the “last
decision of the examiner.” Under 37 C.F.R. 41.39 (a) (1), “[a]n examiner’s
answer is deemed to incorporate all of the grounds of rejection set forth in
the Office action from which the appeal is taken []as modified by any
advisory action . . . .” Here, the Examiner’s Final Rejection is modified by
the Advisory Action maintaining the rejections presented in the Final
Rejection for the corresponding renumbered and entered claims. So, for
clarity, the claim numbers in this decision refer to the claim numbers in the
amendment entered by the Examiner after the Final Rejection, which also
appear the Briefs “Claims Appendix” section.
2
Appeal 2017-000389
Application 11/384,210
receive an indication of an object detected over one key of
said set of keys, and
provide for display, upon receiving the indication of said
object detected over said one key, of a first sub-set of keys
associated with a first set of sub-functions of said one key,
wherein said sub-set of keys is arranged adjacent to said one key
and the first sub-set of keys includes a key that was not included
in the original set of keys, wherein at least one of the original set
of keys is moved relative to at least one of the other of the
original set of keys to make room for said first sub-set of keys,
and wherein at least one key of the original set of keys is resized
relative to at least one of the other of the original set of keys on
said touch sensitive display to make room for saidfirst sub-set of
keys such that the original set of keys remain displayed for
selection.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Son US 6,278,887 B1
Yamadera US 2003/0064757 A1
Hotelling US 2006/0161871 A1
Aug. 21,2001
Apr. 3, 2003
July 20, 2006
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 20, 22, 2A-27, 29, and 31-332 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yamadera and
Hotelling. Final Act. 2—18.3
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamadera, Hotelling, and Son. Final Act. 19-20.
2 These claim numbers correspond to the claim numbers in the amendment
entered by the Examiner after the Final Rejection, which also appear the
Briefs “Claims Appendix” section.
3 Throughout this decision, we refer to (1) the Final Action (“Final Act.”)
mailed February 6, 2015, (2) the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed September 2,
2015, as amended by the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed December 14,
2015, and (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 25, 2016.
3
Appeal 2017-000389
Application 11/384,210
THE REJECTION OVER YAMADERA AND HOTELLING
Contentions
Appellant argues that Yamadera lacks “wherein at least one key of the
original set of keys is resized relative to at least one of the other of the
original set of keys on said touch sensitive display to make room for said
first sub-set of keys,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 5—7. According to
Appellant, the Examiner’s interpretation of resized keys in claim 1 as
covering Yamadera’s removed keys is unreasonable. Id. at 6.
The Examiner provides two alternative rationales in the rejection of
claim 1. See Final Act. 2—6.
In a first rationale, the Examiner finds that Yamadera resizes keys but
does not do so “such that the original set of keys remain displayed for
selection,” as recited. Final Act. 3—4. In concluding that the subject matter
of claim 1 would have been obvious, the Examiner cites Hotelling for the
feature not found in Yamadera. Id. at 5. Notably, under this first rationale,
the Examiner finds that Yamadera’s removal of icon 22 corresponds to the
recited resizing. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, Yamadera resizes icon
22 to the point where it disappears. Id.
In a second alternative rationale, the Examiner relies on Hotelling, not
Yamadera, to teach resizing icons. Id. at 5. In combining the teachings of
Yamadera and Hotelling, the Examiner proposes resizing the icons, as taught
by Hotelling, “instead of’ removing icons, as taught by Yamadera, to arrive
at the claimed invention. Id.
4
Appeal 2017-000389
Application 11/384,210
Analysis
In the second rationale, the Examiner’s reliance on Hotelling for the
recited resizing in the proposed combination with Yamadera (see Final Act.
5) is reasonable.
Figures 171 and 17J of Hotelling, cited by the Examiner, are
reproduced below:
690
Hotelling’s Figures 171 and 17J show a resized scroll wheel 662.
5
Appeal 2017-000389
Application 11/384,210
As shown in Figures 171 and 17J, Hotelling’s user activates keyboard 692 to
enter data. Hotelling 1136. In response, the interface minimizes scroll
wheel 662 to make room for keyboard 692. Id. Like the keys recited in
claim 1, Hotelling’s scroll wheel 662 remains displayed for selection. Id.
Fig. 17J. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hotelling
teaches resizing. See Final Act. 5 (citing Hotelling Figs. 171, 17J).
Appellant did not rebut the Examiner’s finding that Hotelling lacks
resizing (see Br. 5—7), as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 6). Rather,
Appellant incorrectly states that “the Final Office Action does not cite
[Hotelling] for such purposes.” Br. 7. Because the Examiner finds that
Hotelling teaches resizing (Final Act. 5), we deem the Examiner’s reliance
on Yamadera for teaching this feature as cumulative. Accordingly, we need
not address the Examiner’s finding that Yamadera’s keys are resized.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of (1) independent claim 1 and (2) claims 2—5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15—17, 20, 22,
24—27, 29, and 31—33,4 which are not separately argued with particularity.
See Br. 7.
THE REJECTION OVER YAMADERA, HOTELLING, AND SONG
Claims 14 and 23 depend from claims 1 and 16. In arguing against
the rejection for claims 14 and 23, Appellant refers to the arguments
presented for claim 1. Id. So, the issues identified by Appellant are the
same. For the reasons discussed in connection with claim 1, we also sustain
the rejection of claims 14 and 23.
4 We observe that claim 33 recites, in part, a “computer program product
according to claim 31.” But claim 31 recites a method, not a computer
program product.
6
Appeal 2017-000389
Application 11/384,210
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 7, 10, 12—17, 20,
22-27, 29, and 31-33.
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
7