Ex Parte Taieb et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 18, 2012

11426100 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/426,100 06/23/2006 David Taieb CAM920060062US1 (136) 1355
46321 7590 01/18/2012
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
TILLERY, RASHAWN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID TAIEB, TOMEN TSE, and YOSHITO UMAOKA
____________

Appeal 2010-001271
Application 11/426,100
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and CAROLYN D.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request that we reconsider our decision of November 8,
2011 (“Op.”) where we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5. We
have reconsidered our decision in light of Appellants’ arguments in the
Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the decision for the
following reasons.
Appellants allege that we did not address whether Koch generates a
set of label mnemonics for a set of labels as claimed. Req. 3-5. Specifically,
Appellants contend that our reference to “menu items” in the analysis
overlooks the recited generation of (1) a run-time set of label mnemonics for
Appeal 2010-001271
Application 11/426,100

2
a set of labels, and (2) a different set of label mnemonics for the set of label
mnemonics if the originally-generated set includes one or more non-unique
mnemonics. Req. 3-5.
But as we indicated in our decision, Koch’s automatically assigning
label mnemonics to dynamically-generated menu items fully meets
generating a run-time set of label mnemonics for a set of labels. Op. 4. And
as we noted, if Koch’s system determines that a particular mnemonic has
already been assigned to a particular menu item (e.g., it is one of the
automatically-assigned mnemonics noted above), it is therefore not unique,
at least with respect to its previous assignment (i.e., it is not unique for the
original run-time set). Id. In that case, Koch then generates a different set
of label mnemonics for the set of labels, namely available characters. Id.
Appellants’ argument that Koch’s functionality does not meet the recited
functional limitation “for the set of label mnemonics” is unavailing, for such
an argument is simply not commensurate with the scope of the limitation.
We therefore remain unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection based on Koch for the reasons indicated in our
decision and by the Examiner.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we have granted Appellants’ request to the
extent that we have reconsidered our decision, but we deny the request with
respect to making any changes therein.

Appeal 2010-001271
Application 11/426,100

3
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REHEARING DENIED

rwk