Ex Parte Unruh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

13830674 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/830,674 03/14/2013
29344 7590 03/22/2018
ONELLO & MELLO LLP
Three Burlington Woods Drive
Suite 203
Burlington, MA 01803-4532
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erland Unruh
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.
NUA-13-0001-US-ORG 9690
EXAMINER
KETEMA, BENY AM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
mail@omiplaw.com
docketing@omiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERLAND UNRUH and DAVID KA Y 1
Appeal2017-008922
Application 13/830,674
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 15, 17-21, and 23-27. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, and24 are rejected underpre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Cantrell (US
2013/0120278 Al; May 16, 2013) and Shelley (US 2010/0321299 Al; Dec.
23, 2010). Final Act. 5-18.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nuance Communications,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008922
Application 13/830,674
Claims 5, 19, and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Cantrell, Shelley, and Chua (US
2004/0183833 Al; Sept. 23, 2004). Final Act. 18-21.
Claims 6, 7, 20, 26, and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Cantrell, Shelley, and
Roeber (US 2004/0136564 Al; July 15, 2004). Final Act. 21-25.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "reducing error rates to data input to a
keyboard, such as a touch screen keyboard." Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative
and reproduced below, with the key disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A method for reducing error rates associated with key
input to a keyboard, the method comprising:
detecting at least one keyboard event,
wherein the detected keyboard event includes user
touch coordinates,
wherein the user touch coordinates correspond to a
set of coordinates indicated by a touch of a user on a keyboard,
keys,
wherein the keyboard is visible to the user,
wherein the keyboard is associated with multiple
wherein each key, of the multiple keys, on the
keyboard (A) has a visible area on the keyboard and (B) is
represented by keyboard database coordinates, and
wherein the keyboard database coordinates define
an input area on the keyboard for that key;
2
Appeal2017-008922
Application 13/830,674
determining an intended input key based on the detected
keyboard event,
wherein determining the intended input key
includes:
determining multiple candidate keys near to the set
of coordinates indicated by the touch on the keyboard;
calculating a probability for whether each of the
multiple candidate keys was the intended input key,
wherein the probability of each of the
multiple candidate keys is increased or decreased according to
(i) a first weighting factor that
corresponds to a manual word selection event or
(ii) a second weighting factor that
corresponds to an automatic word selection event; and,
updating the keyboard database coordinates for a
key on the keyboard based on the determined, intended input
key,
wherein the input area defined by the
updated keyboard database coordinates for the key is different
than the visible area for the key.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, AND 24
OVER CANTRELL AND SHELLEY
Contentions
The Examiner finds Cantrell and Shelley, combined, teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 6-9. In particular, the Examiner further
finds Shelley's adjacency mapping including a weight for each key/adjacent
key pair teaches the key disputed limitation. Final Act. 7 (citing Shelley Fig.
3
Appeal2017-008922
Application 13/830,674
7 and i-fi-164---66); see also Ans. 3 ("Shelley et al[.] (Fig 7 and Par 0064)
discloses use of weighting factor assigned to each keys wherein weight can
represent the likelihood that the adjacent key was the key that the user
intended to select instead of the selected key.").
Appellants present, among other arguments, the following principal
argument:
Shelley discloses assigning weights to keys or adjacent key
pairs based on a general prevalence of mistyped keys, keyboard
attributes (such as the closeness of key adjacencies), or
calibration data (e.g., noting coordinates tapped by a user after
requiring the user to type a presented phrase). The Examiner
simply fails to articulate how any such prevalence of mistyped
keys, keyboard attributes, calibration data, or indeed any other
subject matter disclosed in Shelley has any bearing on altering
the probability of a key based on the factors recited by
Appellant. Shelley simply lacks a teaching of altering the
probability of a key input based on word selection. Therefore,
Appellant respectfully submits that each of the weighting
criteria disclosed in Shelley is fundamentally different than-
and not extensible to-Appellant's weighting factors, which are
based on either a manual word selection event or an
automatic word selection event.
App. Br. 9--10; see also Reply Br. 6-8.
Our Review
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
Regarding Cantrell, the Examiner finds Cantrell's determination of
percentage of contact area overlap teaches "determining multiple candidate
4
Appeal2017-008922
Application 13/830,674
keys" and "calculating a probability for whether each of the multiple
candidate keys was the intended input key" as recited in claim 1. Final Act.
6-7 (citing Cantrell i-f 27). Cantrell discloses "device 100 may be operable to
select input option 105 that has the greatest percentage of contact area
overlap." Cantrell i-f 27. Even if we consider Cantrell's detection of mistakes
(detecting use of back space key to correct input mistake, accepting device
provided correction) (see Cantrell i-f29), on the record before us, we do not
readily see increasing or decreasing probability based on a word selection
event as claimed. This is precisely why the Examiner relies on Shelley for
the key disputed limitation.
Turning to Shelley, Shelley discloses assigning a weight to each
letter/adjacent letter key pair. The weight represents a likelihood that an
adjacent key was intended to be selected instead of the actual selected key.
The different weightings reflect the concept that, for example, the key to the
left of the selected key may be more likely to be the intended key than the
key to the right of the selected key. Similarly, the key above the selected key
may be more likely to be the intended key than the key below the selected
key. These weights are then used to prioritize alternatives presented to the
user when it appears that the user's actual selected key was not the intended
selected key. See Shelly Figures 7 A-7C and i-f 64. Shelley further discloses
assigning weights based on knowledge or history of mistyped keys. See
Shelley i-f 65. Shelley further discloses that the weights may be based on
calibration data determined by giving the user a phrase to type. See Shelley
,-r 66.
To the extent Shelley's disclosure of letter/adjacent letter weights
teaches probabilities for candidate keys, and to the extent Shelley suggests to
5
Appeal2017-008922
Application 13/830,674
one of ordinary skill in the art that these probabilities may be increased or
decreased by modifying Shelley's weights, we do not see where Shelley
teaches increasing or decreasing probabilities (or weights) as claimed -
"according to (i) a first weighting factor that corresponds to a manual word
selection event or (ii) a second weighting factor that corresponds to an
automatic word selection event" as recited in claim 1 - because, as argued
by Appellants, we do not see where Shelley teaches altering the probability
(or weight) for a letter/adjacent letter pair based on word selection events
(manual word selection or automatic word selection).
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Cantrell
and Shelley teach the key disputed limitation.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3 and 4, which
depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 15 recites "wherein the calculated probability for
the input key is increased or decreased according to (i) a first weighting
factor that corresponds to a manual word selection event or (ii) a second
weighting factor that corresponds to an automatic word selection event." For
the same reasons discussed above, we, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 15. We also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 17 and 18, which depend from claim 15.
Independent claim 21 recites "wherein the calculated likelihood of
each of the multiple candidate keys is increased or decreased according to (i)
a first weighting factor that corresponds to a manual word selection event or
(ii) a second weighting factor that corresponds to an automatic word
selection event." For the same reasons discusses above, we, therefore, do not
6
Appeal2017-008922
Application 13/830,674
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15. We also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 23 and 24, which depend from claim 21.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 5, 19, AND 25 OVER CANTRELL,
SHELLEY, AND CHUA
Claims 5, 19, and 25 depend from claims 1, 15, and 21, respectively.
The Examiner does not find Chua cures the deficiency of Cantrell and
Shelley discussed above. See Final Act. 18-21.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 19,
and 25.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6, 7, 20, 26, AND 27 OVER
CANTRELL, SHELLEY, AND ROEBER
Claims 6, 7, 20, 26, and 27 variously depend from claims 1, 15, and
21. The Examiner does not find Roeber cures the deficiency of Cantrell and
Shelley discussed above. See Final Act. 21-25.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 7,
20, 26, and 27.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 15, 17-21, and 23-
2 7 is reversed.
REVERSED
7