Ex Parte Fux et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2012

11098784 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte VADIM FUX and JASON T. GRIFFIN
____________

Appeal 2010-000618
Application 11/098,784
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and KALYAN K.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000618
Application 11/098,784

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, and 10. (App. Br. 2.) Claims 2-3 and 6-9 were cancelled.
(Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The Invention
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. A method of disambiguating an input into a handheld electronic
device, the handheld electronic device including an input apparatus, an
output apparatus, and a processor apparatus including a memory having a
plurality of objects stored therein, the plurality of objects including a
plurality of language objects, each language object of at least a portion of the
plurality to language objects comprising at least a first linguistic element, the
plurality of language objects including a plurality of word objects the input
apparatus including a plurality of input members, each of at least a portion
of the input members of the plurality of input members having a plurality of
linguistic elements assigned thereto, the method comprising:
detecting an ambiguous input including a number of input member
actuations of a number of the input members of the plurality of input
members, each of at least a portion of the input members of the number of
input members including a number of linguistic elements assigned thereto, at
least one of the input members of the number of input members having a
plurality of linguistic elements assigned thereto, wherein the ambiguous
input has an input case makeup;
generating a number of prefix objects corresponding with the
ambiguous input, each prefix object to the number of prefix objects
including a number of the linguistic elements of the number of the input
members of the ambiguous input;
for at least a first prefix object of the number of prefix objects,
identifying at least a pair of work objects of the plurality of language objects
corresponding with the at least a first prefix object, each of the at least a pair
of word objects having the number of linguistic elements of the first prefix
object set forth in the same order, at least a portion of a first work object of
the at least a pair of word objects having a first case makeup comprising a
Appeal 2010-000618
Application 11/098,784

3
number of case elements, at least a portion of a second work object of the at
least a pair of word objects having a second case makeup comprising a
number of case elements, the first case makeup and the second case makeup
being different than one another;
determining that at least a portion of the input case makeup
corresponds with at least a portion of the first case makeup;
outputting among a predetermined quantify of alternative proposed
interpretations of the ambiguous input, as a relatively more preferred variant,
the at least a first prefix object in accordance with the first case makeup; and
outputting as a relatively less preferred variant the at least a first
prefix object in accordance with the second case makeup.

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over King (U.S. 6,286,064 B1) in view of Robinson
(U.S. 2004/0155869 A1). (Ans. 4-13.)

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Does King teach or suggest “generating a number of prefix objects
corresponding with the ambiguous input” wherein the ambiguous input
includes “a number of input member actuations of a number of the input
members of the plurality of input members,” as recited in independent claim
1?

ANALYSIS
Issue - Claims 1, 4, 5, and 10
Appellants assert that King does not teach generating “a number of
prefix objects.” (App. Br. 4.) Appellants argue that in King, the prefix
Appeal 2010-000618
Application 11/098,784

4
objects “instead are displayed for a particular inputted keystroke sequence
from the memory location for that particular node.” (Id.) In response, the
Examiner reasons that “the mere fact that King produces ‘prefix objects’
requires some form of generating.” (Ans. 17.) But claim 1 requires more
than just any form of generating prefix objects. Rather, claim 1 requires
“generating a number of prefix objects corresponding with the ambiguous
input,” wherein the ambiguous input includes “a number of input member
actuations of a number of the input members of the plurality of input
members.” (See Reply Br. 3-4.) And the Examiner has not shown that King
teaches generating prefix objects corresponding to ambiguous input from
actuations of input members.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 or the claims that depend from those claims (i.e., claims 4, 5, and
10).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, and 10.

REVERSED

msc