Ex Parte Longe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2014

11871651 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL R. LONGE, BRIAN PALMER,
KEITH CHARLES HULLFISH, and DOUG BRAMS
____________________

Appeal 2011-012032
Application 11/871,651
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a directional input system with automatic
correction. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:

1 As Appellants note (App. Br. 37-38), the Examiner has not specifically
rejected claims 26 and 27 (See Ans. 3-15, Final Rej. 2-11). Therefore,
claims 26 and 27 are not before us on appeal.
Appeal 2011-012032
Application 11/871,651

2
1. A text entry system, comprising:

a direction selector to individually point in a direction of
letters to collectively form an intended linguistic object, where
each letter comprises a linguistic object subcomponent;

a collection of linguistic objects;

an output device with a text display area;

a processor, comprising:

a difference calculation module configured to output, for
each act of pointing, various letters based upon factors
including at least the difference between an actual direction
indicated by the directional selector and preassigned directions
of said letters;

an object search engine responsive to a sequence of
pointing acts to identify linguistic objects from said collection
of linguistic objects, where each identified linguistic object
comprises a different combination of one letter output by the
difference calculation module for each act of pointing in the
sequence; and

a selection component to facilitate user selection of a
desired linguistic object from said identified linguistic objects.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Vargas
King
Watanabe
Millington
Roberson
Tong
US 5,748,512
US 5,953,541
US 6,567,072 B2
US 6,765,554 B2
US 6,765,567 B1
US 7,162,305 B2
May 5, 1998
Sep. 14, 1999
May 20, 2003
Jul. 20, 2004
Jul. 20, 2004
Jan. 9, 2007
Appeal 2011-012032
Application 11/871,651

3
Kushler US 7,453,439 B1 Nov. 18, 2008
Hildebrand US 2003/0234766 A1 Dec. 25, 2003

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Hildebrand.
Claims 4, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Watanabe, Hildebrand, and Millington.
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Watanabe, Hildebrand, and Vargas.
Claims 7, 9, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Watanabe, Hildebrand, and King.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Watanabe, Hildebrand, and Roberson.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Watanabe, Hildebrand, and Kushler.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Watanabe, Hildebrand, and Tong.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Watanabe discloses “a direction selector to
individually point in a direction of letters to collectively form an intended
linguistic object, where each letter comprises a linguistic object
subcomponent,” “a collection of linguistic objects,” and “an object search
engine responsive to a sequence of pointing acts to identify linguistic objects
from said collection of linguistic objects, where each identified linguistic
Appeal 2011-012032
Application 11/871,651

4
object comprises a different combination of one letter output by the
difference calculation module for each act of pointing in the sequence,” as
recited in claim 1. Appellants contend Watanabe fails to disclose both “a
direction selector” and “collection of linguistic objects” as claimed (App. Br.
14–15). Further, Appellants contend Watanabe fails to disclose the claimed
“object search engine” (App. Br. 17–18). We agree with Appellants.
The Examiner cites Watanabe’s Figure 9A items “3”, “A”, “Z”, “K”
for disclosing both the “direction selector to individually point in a direction
of letters to collectively form an intended linguistic object” and the
“collection of linguistic objects” recited in claim 1 (Ans. 3). These items,
however, are all individual characters that a user of Watanabe’s system can
select, not linguistic objects formed by the individual characters. The
Examiner has not shown that Watanabe discloses “an object search engine
responsive to a sequence of pointing acts to identify linguistic objects from
said collection of linguistic objects,” as recited in claim 1. That is, although
Watanabe’s user selects individual characters, Watanabe’s system does not
then identify linguistic objects based on the user’s selections.
The Examiner responds that Appellants’ arguments are based on
attacking the references individually, rather than what the combination of
references discloses (Ans. 13–14). However, Hildebrand is merely relied
upon to disclose “a difference calculation module configured to output, for
each act of pointing, various letters . . . ,” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 4). The
Examiner has not shown that Hildebrand discloses “an object search engine”
to identify linguistic objects from the various letters output in response to an
act of pointing. In other words, neither Watanabe nor Hildebrand discloses
the claimed “object search engine,” regardless of how either reference
Appeal 2011-012032
Application 11/871,651

5
discloses the manner in which letters, i.e., “linguistic object
subcomponents,” are output responsive to a user’s action.
We are therefore constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 11, 19, and 22 which
recite similar limitations, and dependent claims 2–10, 12–18, 20, 21, and
23–25 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–25 is
reversed.

REVERSED

Klh