Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2018

13213173 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/213, 173 08/19/2011
61725 7590 10/05/2018
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)-Apple
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Taesung Kim
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Pl 1236US1/63266-7132-US 7753
EXAMINER
EDOUARD,PATRICKNESTOR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2018 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte TAESUNG KIM 1
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213,173
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1 through 8, 11, 14 through 16,
19 through 33, and 35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
INVENTION
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to an adaptable touch keypad
that adapts a key layout based at least in part upon detected typographical
usage patterns of a user. See Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
providing, on a touch screen of an electronic device, a keypad with
a plurality of keys aligned in a key layout, the key layout comprising:
a plurality of input regions, wherein each input region is
configured to define touch input boundaries representing a
respective one of the plurality of keys; and
a plurality of graphical representation regions, wherein each
graphical representation region is configured to provide a graphical
representation of a respective one of the plurality of keys;
monitoring, via a processor of the electronic device, a usage
pattern of the keypad; and
modifying, via the processor of the electronic device, one or
more input regions of the plurality of input regions of the key
layout, without modifying the plurality of graphical representation
regions, based at least in part upon the usage pattern, modifying
the one or more input regions including decreasing a size of at least
one of the one or more input regions of the plurality of input
regions of the key layout;
wherein monitoring the usage pattern of the keypad
compnses:
in response to a user selection of a first language
keyboard from a plurality of keyboards, automatically
selecting, from a plurality of dictionaries for different
languages, a first dictionary that corresponds to a language
of the first language keyboard;
obtaining a first usage profile corresponding to
typographical errors identified based on the first
dictionary, while the first language keyboard is being
used;
in response to a user selection of a second
language keyboard from the plurality of keyboards,
2
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
automatically selecting, from the plurality of dictionaries,
a second dictionary that corresponds to a language of the
second language keyboard and that differs from the first
language keyboard; and
obtaining a second usage profile corresponding to
typographical errors identified based on the second
dictionary while the second language keyboard is being
used, wherein the second usage profile is different from
the first usage profile;
and wherein modifying the one or more input
regions of the plurality of input regions of the key layout
comprises, while maintaining both information
corresponding to typographical errors, identified based
on the first dictionary while the first language keyboard
is being used, in the first usage profile for the first
language keyboard and information corresponding to
typographical errors, identified based on the second
dictionary while the second language keyboard is being
used, in the second usage profile for the second language
keyboard:
modifying one or more input regions of the
plurality of input regions of the first language keyboard,
without modifying graphical representation regions of the
first language keyboard, based on the first usage profile;
and
modifying one or more input regions of the
plurality of input regions of the second language
keyboard, without modifying graphical representation
regions of the second language keyboard, based on the
second usage profile.
(See App. Br., Claims Appendix, 27 and 28.)
3
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, 11, 14 through 16,
19, 21, 23, 24, 26 through 33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
unpatentable over Nachman et al., (US 2010/0079310; hereinafter
"Nachman"), Kocienda (US 2009/0058823), Spetalnick (US 2010/0131900),
Bodin et al., (2008/0155398; hereinafter "Bodin"), and Badger et al., (US
2011/0202876; hereinafter "Badger"). Answer 2.
The Examiner has rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
unpatentable over Nachman, Kocienda, Spetalnick, Bodin, Badger and
Comerford et al., (US 5,963,671; hereinafter "Comerford"). Answer 2.
The Examiner has rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
being unpatentable over Nachman, Kocienda, Spetalnick, Bodin, Badger and
Motaparti et al., (US 2008/0266263; hereinafter "Motaparti"). Answer 2.
The Examiner has rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
being unpatentable over Nachman, Kocienda, Spetalnick, Bodin, Badger and
Rayson et al., (US 5,761,689; hereinafter "Rayson"). Answer 2.
The Examiner has rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
being unpatentable over Nachman, Kocienda, Spetalnick, Bodin, Badger and
Arnold (US 2013/0019191). Answer 2.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 14, 201 7
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed December 18, 2017 ("Reply Br."); Non-Final
Office Action mailed November 16, 2016 ("Non-Final Act"); and the
Examiner's Answer mailed October 19, 2017 ("Answer").
4
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
Claim 1
ANALYSIS
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that the
Examiner's rejection is in error as it changes the principle of operation of
Nachman. App. Br. 16-18, Reply Br. 9. Specifically, Appellant identifies
that Nachman is directed to customizing the layout of a keyboard based
upon typing errors made by a user. App. Br. 16. Appellant identifies that
Spetalnick is directed to reducing the number of keystrokes required to enter
data by using predictive word analysis, and that the layouts of predicted
words presented to the user are based upon statistics related to the particular
language. App. Br. 17. Appellant argues that:
However, Spetalnick' s use of "statistics relating to the
particular language" cannot be applied to Nachman's
modification of keyboard layout to achieve the claimed
"modifying ... input regions ... of [ a respective] language
keyboard[] based on the [ corresponding respective] usage
profile." Nachman requires information on typing errors (such
as typing "q" instead of "a") to use in customizing parameters
of keyboard layout such as size, spacing, or shape ( such as
increasing the size of the "a" key). Rather than providing
information on typing errors, Spetalnick' s "statistics" are
calculations of "the frequency of various word combinations"
and are merely used to present "words that would most likely
be used next." Because the "statistics" in Spetalnick do not
provide a "usage profile" that would be of use to Nachman in
modifying keyboard layout to reduce typing errors, Nachman
would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of its
elements to incorporate the "statistics" in Spetalnick. Thus, the
proposed combination of Nachman with at least Spetalnick
"would require a change in the basic principle under which
[Nachman] was designed to operate," and therefore "the
teachings of the references are insufficient to render the claims
primafacie obvious." MPEP 2143.01 VI.
5
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
App. Br. 17-18.
Appellant additionally argues the Examiner's rejection is in error as
the combination of references does not teach the concept of storing and
maintaining usage profiles for different language keyboards. App. Br. 18.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that since Spetalnick's statistics are related to
the word that would most likely be used next, Spetalnick does not teach
maintaining the first and second profiles as claimed. App. Br. 18.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant's
arguments on pages 3 through 5 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that
Nachman teaches modifying on-screen keys of a touch-screen device based
upon typographical errors and Kocienda teaches providing different usage
profiles for different languages. Answer 3--4. Further, the Examiner finds
that Spetalnick teaches storing and maintaining different usage profiles for
different language keyboards. Answer 4.
In particular, the Examiner states:
[t]he rejection of the claim is NOT based on using the specific
type of usage profile (i.e., the statistics) taught by Spetalnick[] in the
device taught by Nachman and Kocienda, but is based on applying
Spetalnick 's general teaching of maintain different usage profiles for
keyboards of different languages to the device taught by Nachman and
Kocienda.
Answer 4.
We have reviewed the Examiner's response, and we concur with the
Examiner's rationale and findings. We are not persuaded by Appellant's
argument in the Reply Brief that:
by ignoring the specific "statistics" in Spetalnick the Examiner
improperly abstracts the teachings of Spetalnick, and thereby
"finding" teachings in Spetalnick not actually taught by Spetalnick,
but instead "found" through the application of hindsight to the more
6
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
specific teachings actually presented by Spetalnick. The specific
teachings of Spetalnick as to the alleged "usage profiles" cannot be
ignored when considering the proposed combination of references.
Reply Br. 9.
We do not consider the Examiner's reliance on Spetalnick to teach
maintaining profiles to be improper, because although Spetalnick teaches
that the profile contains a different type of data, the character of the data
does not change the fact that Spetalnick teaches that it is known that data
concerning a profile of an interactive display is maintained. Applying this
teaching in combination with the other references, which shows other data
concerning an interactive display, is merely using known methods for their
known purpose. "The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). Thus,
Appellant's arguments directed to the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 have
not persuaded us of error and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
and claims 2, 4 through 8, 11, 14, 15, 21, 26 through 28, and 30 through 33
grouped with claim 1.
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, Appellant additionally argues that the
Examiner's rejection is in error as the combination of the references does not
teach modifying the input regions in intermediate steps until the region has
become a specified minimum or maximum size as claimed. App. Br. 19.
Appellant argues that Badger, which the Examiner relies upon to teach this
feature, merely shows that some keys are larger or smaller but does not
teach, nor is it inherent that the target areas are adjusted in intermediate steps
7
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
until a maximum or minimum is reached. App. Br. 19--20 ( citing Badger
Fig. 12B, and para. 152).
The Examiner responds to Appellant's arguments citing a portion of
Badger's Figure 12B, which depicts the input area for the "w" key as being
larger than the "t" key, which is in tum larger than the input area for the
other keys. Answer 6. Based upon this teaching the Examiner finds that
Badger teaches modifying the input region in intermediate steps. Answer 6.
Further, the Examiner states "it is inherent for the device of Badger to
change the size of the input region until the size has become a maximized
size because [the] size of the input region cannot continuously be increased.
There must be a preset size limit as to how much the input region can be
expanded." Answer 7.
We have reviewed the cited teachings of Badger, and we concur with
the Examiner that it is inherent that there is a maximum size of the input area
(in that the input area for a key can never be larger than the input area for the
entire part of the device sensing touch). However, we disagree with the
Examiner with regard to the limitation directed to modifying the input region
in intermediate steps. While Figure 12B may show several different size
input regions, the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that these regions are generated by modifying the size in
intermediate steps as recited in claim 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 16.
Claims 19 and 29
With respect to claims 19 and 29, Appellant additionally argues that
the Examiner's rejection is in error as the Examiner has not provided any
8
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
evidence to support taking Official Notice of separately monitoring usage
patterns, and storing separate usage profiles, when the keyboard orientation
is changed. App. Br. 20.
We are not persuaded of error by these arguments. In response to
Appellant's arguments, the Examiner provided two references to show that it
is known to have keyboards change between portrait and landscape. Answer
8 ( citing Lee, Fig. 5 and Temple, para. 215). Further, the Examiner states:
since the combination of Nachman and Kocienda already
teaches the concept of providing different usage profiles for
different keyboards, if another keyboard (i.e., the rotated
keyboard) is included in the device of Nachman and Kocienda,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
provide an usage profile for such additional keyboard.
Examiner respectfully submits that the issue is NOT whether
providing such additional usage profile for the rotated onscreen
keyboard is well known in the art but is whether providing the
additional usage profile would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. It is Examiner's opinion that the
concept of providing a usage profile to a specific type of
keyboard or key layout cannot be patented over prior arts'
teaching of providing different usage profiles for different
keyboards because otherwise whenever different type of
keyboard or key layout is introduced, providing a usage profile
for such keyboard or key layout would be patentable.
Answer 8-9 ( emphasis omitted).
We concur with the Examiner's findings and conclusion of
obviousness. We are not persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments in
response to the Examiner's citation of Temple (US 2011/0285651) and Lee
(US 2010/0030549). In these arguments, Appellant states:
The Examiner improperly assumes that the rotated
keyboard is necessarily a different keyboard from the keyboard
displayed prior to rotation. To the contrary, it would not be
9
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
obvious for a device to recognize a landscape-view keyboard of
a given language as a distinct keyboard from its portrait-view
counterpart. Therefore, it would not be obvious for the device
to separately monitor, store, access, or analyze a different usage
profile for a given keyboard when rotated. As such, it would
not be obvious for the device to separately monitor, store,
access, or analyze a different set of multiple usage profiles for
the various language keyboards when rotated.
Reply Br. 11-12.
These arguments are not commiserate with the scope of the claim, as
the claim does not relate the landscape and portrait view of the keyboard as
being for the same language. Furthermore, as the profiles are related to the
size and spacing of the keys, and since the size and spacing of the keys is
different in landscape and portrait, it would be apparent that the usage
patterns would also be different. Also, we note with respect to the Lee
reference, the landscape and portrait views are for different languages (see
fig. 5, and paras. 40-41 ). And, as the Examiner has shown that the
combination of Nachman and Kocienda teaches different profiles for
different languages, it follows that the different views would have different
profiles. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 19 and 29. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Claims 23 and 35
With respect to claims 23 and 35, Appellant additionally argues that
the Examiner's rejection is in error as the combination of the references does
not teach that the usage pattern is the selection of unintended keys in
combination with an intended key. Nor does it teach that the typographical
10
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
errors include activation of two adjacent keys as recited in claims 23 and 35.
App. Br. 21-23. Appellant argues that Nachman is concerned with typing
errors from using an incorrect key that is adjacent to the correct key and not
the selection of an unintended key and the intended key. App. Br. 23.
The Examiner in response to Appellant's argument identifies that
Nachman identifies a selection of an incorrect letter by monitoring a
dictionary or manual replacement of the words typed and as such teaches
monitoring combinations of letters (words) to identify an incorrect letter.
Answer 9 (citing Nachman paras. 15 and 16). Based upon this finding, the
Examiner finds that the Nachman teaches the usage pattern comprises the
selection of an untended key in combination with an intended key. Answer
9-10.
We agree with the Examiner and are not persuaded of error with
regard to Appellant's arguments. As discussed by the Examiner, Nachman
teaches modifying the keyboard based upon the selection of an incorrect
letter with the use of a dictionary. Appellant's argument that this teaching is
limited to the entry of one key and not two keys ( an unintended key in
combination with an intended key), or that the typographical errors include
activation of two adjacent keys, is not persuasive. As pointed out by the
Examiner, by using a dictionary, Nachman teaches that modifying the
keyboard based upon the operation of multiple keys, while it may not
specifically state that the typographical error is from selection of an
unintended and intended key (two adjacent keys), such an operation will
cause a typographical (spelling) error that will be used to adjust the keys.
Accordingly, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 35.
11
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
Claims 24
With respect to claim 24, Appellant additionally argues that the
Examiner's rejection is in error as the combination of the references does not
teach modifying a shape of the input region of the intended key to cover an
area where the unintended key was selected. Answer 24--25. Specifically,
Appellant argues that Badger teaches predictively expanding key target areas
based upon probabilities but does not teach the expanding of the intended
key's input region based upon prior selection of two keys in combination.
App. Br. 25
The Examiner finds that claim 24' s limitation, directed to modifying
the shape of the intended region, is modified to cover the area where the
unintended key was selected as taught by the combination of Nachman and
Badger. Answer 11-12. Specifically, the Examiner finds, as discussed with
respect to claim 23, Nachman teaches modifying the keyboard based upon
operation of multiple keys. Answer 11. Further, the Examiner cites
Badger's Figure 12 for showing that the key areas for intended keys also
cover other adjacent keys. Answer 11-12.
We concur with the Examiner's findings. As discussed above with
respect to claim 23, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that
Nachman teaches modifying the keyboard based upon operation of multiple
keys. Furthermore, as identified by the Examiner, Badger's Figure 12
depicts the input area for an intended key also covers adjacent keys.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24.
12
Appeal2018-002103
Application 13/213, 173
Claims 3, 20, 22, and 25
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 20, 22, and 25
are in error for the same reasons as claims 1, 14, and 21. As discussed
above, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error with regard to
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 14, and 21. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 20, 22, and 25 for the same reasons as
claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 8, 11, 14, 15,
19 through 33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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-IN-PART
13