Ex Parte Hsieh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

13033978 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 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.
13/033,978 02/24/2011 Yu-Chun HSIEH 2450/2089PUS2 9929
60601 7590 07/31/2017
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
EXAMINER
MCLOONE, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2017 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 YU-CHUN HSIEH
Appeal 2017-003376
Application 13/033,978
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1, 5, 7, and 8, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Zippy Technology Corp.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003376
Application 13/033,978
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention “relates to an input
device with multi-object switch transmission and particularly to an input
device to transmit input messages to multiple information processing
systems through a wireless link protocol.” Spec. 1:4—7.2 The Specification
explains that in certain embodiments the input device is a keyboard. Id.
at 8:1—20.
Exemplary Claim
1. A keyboard with multi-object switch transmission,
comprising:
a Bluetooth transmission device configured to get
multiple sets of Bluetooth communication protocol codes from
a plurality of linkable information processing systems;
a memory unit including a plurality of preset protocol
data fields;
a micro control unit electrically connected to the
Bluetooth transmission device and the memory unit to save
each set of Bluetooth communication protocol codes
corresponding to each information processing system in each
preset protocol data field of the memory unit, each set of
Bluetooth communication protocol codes having a combination
of a device identification code (Bd address), a device
authorization code (link key), and a device selection code which
are linked together;
a circuit unit configured to cause the Bluetooth
transmission device to request a respective set of the multiple
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed February 24, 2011; “Non-Final Act.” for the Non-Final
Office Action, mailed April 6, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
August 17, 2016; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 20,
2016; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 9, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-003376
Application 13/033,978
sets of Bluetooth communication protocol codes from a first
system of the plurality of linkable information processing
systems, the circuit unit further configured to discontinue
collecting any additional set of Bluetooth communication
protocol codes from the plurality of linkable information
processing systems in response to a judgment to stop searching
for additional linkable information processing systems and
continue collecting an additional set of Bluetooth
communication protocol codes from the plurality of linkable
information processing systems in response to a different
judgment to renew searching for additional linkable information
processing systems, the circuit unit further configured to output
a corresponding device selection code to trigger the micro
control unit to access the corresponding Bluetooth
communication protocol codes in a selected preset protocol data
field from the memory unit to link the Bluetooth transmission
device to a corresponding one of the plurality of linkable
information processing systems; and
a plurality of keys and a plurality of device switch keys,
each of the plurality of keys triggering the circuit unit to output
a character code to the corresponding one of the plurality of
linkable information processing systems, different device
switch keys triggering the circuit unit to generate device
selection codes corresponding to varying preset protocol data
fields.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
Osakada et al. US 6,308,239 B1 Oct. 23, 2001
(“Osakada”)
Zhuang et al.
(“Zhuang”)
Booking et al
(“Bocking”)
US 2005/0289225 Al Dec. 29, 2005
US 2006/0058013 Al Mar. 16, 2006
Ramakesavan et al.
(“Ramakesavan”)
US 7,162,232 B2 Jan. 9, 2007
3
Appeal 2017-003376
Application 13/033,978
The Rejections on Appeal
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ramakesavan and Booking. Non-Final Act. 2-4.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ramakesavan, Booking, and Osakada. Non-Final Act. 4—7.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ramakesavan, Booking, and Zhuang. Non-Final Act. 7.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ramakesavan, Booking, Osakada, and Zhuang. Non-Final Act. 7—8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1,5,7, and 8 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellant’s assertions regarding error by the
Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Non-Final Office
Action (Non-Final Act. 2—10) and the Answer (Ans. 2-4). We add the
following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 1
Keyboard Comprising Circuit Unit Outputting
Character Codes and Device Selection Codes
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 because Ramakesavan does not (1) “teach or suggest how a selection
device can be applied on a keyboard” and (2) “teach one of ordinary skill in
the art to use the original circuit to output the character codes and the device
selection codes according to the same electric signal generated by pressing
the key of the keyboard.” App. Br. 12—13 (emphasis omitted); see Reply
Br. 3. In particular, Appellant contends that “Ramakesavan merely
4
Appeal 2017-003376
Application 13/033,978
discloses: 1. using the electric signal generated by the circuit of [the] pointer
to link to the Bluetooth communication protocol codes; and 2. showing the
intention of applying the selection device 12 without any detailed
description.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Ramakesavan teaches a wireless selection device
that (1) selects among multiple Bluetooth devices and (2) “may be a
keyboard” or “a variety of other devices.” Ans. 3. More specifically,
Ramakesavan discloses that “the wireless selection device 12, in one
embodiment, may be a wireless pointer, which may provide pointing
functions on any of a plurality of wirelessly coupled devices” or “the
wireless selection device 12 may be a keyboard, a joystick, or any of a
variety of other devices.” Ramakesavan 2:15—20, Abstract (“wireless
keyboard”); see Ans. 3; see also Non-Final Act. 9.
Further, the Examiner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art
“would readily understand that both the pointer and keyboard embodiments
are user input devices with a plurality of keys or buttons and that the
teachings of Ramakesavan with respect to the pointer embodiment of the
wireless selection device 12 could be readily applied to a keyboard
embodiment.” Ans. 2. An obviousness analysis “can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). A person
of ordinary skill “must be presumed to know something” about the art “apart
from what the references disclose.” In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516
(CCPA 1962). A person of ordinary skill is “a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
5
Appeal 2017-003376
Application 13/033,978
As found by the Examiner, Ramakesavan discloses that the wireless
selection device 12 includes programmable operators 16a—16e.
Ramakesavan 2:21—39, Figs. 2—3; see Ans. 2. Ramakesavan teaches that
“[e]ach of the programmable operators 16 may be programmed to relate to
or be associated with a particular device 14 with which the selection device
12 may communicate.” Ramakesavan 2:36—39; see Non-Final Act. 3.
Ramakesavan also teaches that when a user presses one of the operators
16a— 16e, “the selection device 12 reads the address of a device 14 obtained
from the corresponding non-volatile storage 34 and selects that device” to
communicate with. Ramakesavan 4:28—31, Fig. 6; see Non-Final Act. 3.
Thus, the operators 16a—16e cause a circuit to output “device selection
codes.” See Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 2. In a keyboard embodiment, the
keyboard causes the circuit to output “character codes,” i.e., electrical codes
corresponding to the various letters and symbols (characters) appearing on
the keyboard’s keys. See Ans. 2.
Ramakesavan explains that the operators 16a—16e “may be
implemented by any of a variety of user selectable technologies including
physically depressible buttons . . . .” Ramakesavan 2:32—35. As the
Examiner finds, Ramakesavan’s teachings regarding the operators 16a— 16e
“could be readily applied to a keyboard embodiment.” Ans. 2. Appellant
does not direct us to evidence demonstrating that the modification would
have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
6
Appeal 2017-003376
Application 13/033,978
Linking Device Selection Codes
Appellant argues that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claim 1
because “it would not have been obvious from” Ramakesavan’s teachings
how “to link the selection code which is the electric signal generated by
pressing the circuit to the address.” App. Br. 13. More specifically,
Appellant asserts that “Ramakesavan merely recite[s] that the first address of
a sufficiently proximate device 14 in the circular buffer of the volatile
storage 34 is copied to the non-volatile storage 30 associated with a
button 16” and “does not further describe how they are associated with
together.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Ramakesavan discloses that “[t]he assignment of a device 14 to a button 16
is completely programmable . . . .” Ramakesavan 2:39-40; see id. 4:20-51,
Fig. 6; Non-Final Act. 8. Further, the Examiner finds that Ramakesavan
teaches that (1) the buttons 16 “have an associated buffer position [memory
address] in non-volatile storage”; (2) “the memory addresses include
references to” button-generated codes; and (3) the button-generated codes
are used “to retrieve corresponding device address information from
memory.” Ans. 3^4 (citing Ramakesavan 1:7—30, 3:45—65, Figs. 1—4); see
Ramakesavan 3:63—65, Figs. 3—6. The Examiner also finds that a person of
ordinary skill in the art “would understand common methods” for
associating memory addresses with button-generated codes, such as a
look-up table. Ans. 3.
Evidence of Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness
Appellant contends that claim 1 is nonobvious because (1) “there is no
Bluetooth keyboard being successfully manufactured at the time considering
7
Appeal 2017-003376
Application 13/033,978
Ramakesavan case has disclosed such techniques” and (2) the claimed
invention “changes the tendency of the keyboard market.” App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error
because, as the Examiner notes, Appellant “has not submitted any persuasive
evidence” supporting them, e.g., evidence of “secondary considerations
militating against obviousness,” such as commercial success “derived from
such a market showing.” Ans. 3.
Appellant asserts that “it is unreasonable to require presenting an
evidence of something that did not exist before it was created.” Reply Br. 3.
But evidence of commercial success or industry praise, for instance, would
exist after invention creation. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
839 F.3d 1034, 1053-56 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (enbanc).
Summary for Independent Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Ramakesavan and Booking. Hence, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1.
The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 5, 7, and 8
Appellant does not make any separate substantive patentability
arguments for claims 5, 7, and 8. App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 2-4. Because
Appellant does not argue the claims separately, we sustain the rejections of
claims 5, 7, and 8 for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
8
Appeal 2017-003376
Application 13/033,978
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,5,7, and 8.
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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9