Ex Parte Wen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

12407803 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
12/407,803 03/20/2009 Yandong Wen 215786-0095-00-US 8046
141674 7590 01/31/2018
Drinker RiHHle Rr Reath/Miernsinft
EXAMINER
1500 K Street, N.W. NGUYEN, LE V
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
DB RIPDocket @ dbr. com
penelope. mongelluzzo @ dbr. com
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANDONG WEN
Appeal 2017-008355
Application 12/407,8031
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 10-13, 15, 19, and 24—32, which
are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation
and Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
December 1, 2016; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 18, 2017;
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed March 24, 2017; Final Office Action
(“Final Act.”) mailed May 6, 2016; and original Specification (“Spec.”) filed
March 20, 2009.
Appeal 2017-008355
Application 12/407,803
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to adjustable user interfaces with
movable separators/sliders, and devices provided with such adjustable user
interfaces, shown in Figure 2, as reproduced below. Abstract; Title.
DISPLAY
SCREEN
MS
A
V..
WON
210.4
ICON
2 MB
ICON
2 i OX
DISPLAY
> AREA
2t}2
SEPARATOR
206
CONTROL
y AREA | 204
Figure 2 shows a user interface provided on display screen 108 that
features variable-sized display area 202 and control area 204 partitioned by
sliding separator 206.
As shown in Figure 2, sliding the separator 206 is movable along the
display screen 108 to display different types of keypad (i.e., numeric keypad
or QWERTY keypad). In one embodiment of Appellant’s invention, a user
interface displaying a numeric keypad (Spec. Figure 5) in the input control
2
Appeal 2017-008355
Application 12/407,803
portion transitions—in response to movement of a separator along the
display screen—to the display of an alphanumeric ITU-T standard keypad
(Spec. Fig. 6) or QWERTY keypad (Spec. Fig. 7) in the input control
portion. Spec. 35—40, Figs. 5—7.
Claims 1,10, and 15 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. An apparatus comprising at least one physical computer-
readable storage medium having stored thereon computer-
executable instructions that, when loaded into at least one
hardware processor and executed, program the hardware
processor to:
present a control portion of a user interface on a fixed-
size display device, the control portion configured to display a
keypad;
present a display portion of the user interface on the
display device, the display portion configured to display
corresponding alphanumeric text associated with input entered
via the keypad;
present a movable slider on the display device, so that the
slider separates the control portion from the display portion;
display the keypad in the control portion of the user
interface, and display corresponding alphanumeric text entered
via the keypad on the display portion;
receive an indication that the slider has moved on the
display device;
adjust relative proportions of the control portion and the
display portion in response to the indication; and
display the keypad as a numeric keypad when the slider
is in a first position relative to the display device, and transition
to display the keypad as one of an alphanumeric ITU-T
standard keypad or a QWERTY keypad when the slider is in at
least a second position relative to the display device while
continuing to present the display portion of the user interface.
App. Br. 31—36 (Claims App’x).
3
Appeal 2017-008355
Application 12/407,803
Examiner’s Rejections & References
(1) Claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 15, 19, 25, 27, and 29—32 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over van Os (US
2010/0011304 Al; Jan. 14, 2010), Kim et al. (US 2009/0249235 Al; Oct. 1,
2009; “Kim”), and Dutta et al. (US 6,724,370 B2; Apr. 20, 2004; “Dutta”).
Final Act. 2—10.
(2) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over van Os, Kim, Dutta, and Hotelling et al. (US
2006/0026536 Al; Feb. 2, 2006; “Hotelling”). Final Act. 11.
(3) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over van Os, Kim, Dutta, and Shimada et al. (US
2005/0188331 Al; Aug. 25, 2005; “Shimada”). Final Act. 11-12.
(4) Claims 24, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over van Os, Kim, Dutta, and Cohn (US 5,712,995;
Jan. 27, 1998). Final Act. 12.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of van Os, Kim, and Dutta teaches or suggests
display the keypad as a numeric keypad when the slider is in a
first position relative to the display device, and transition to
display the keypad as one of an alphanumeric ITU-T standard
keypad or a QWERTY keypad when the slider is in at least a
second position relative to the display device while continuing
to present the display portion of the user interface,
4
Appeal 2017-008355
Application 12/407,803
as recited in independent claim 1, and similar limitations recited in
independent claims 10 and 15 (reciting “separator” instead of “slider”).
App. Br. 14—21; Reply Br. 2-A.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia:
receive an indication that the slider has moved on the
display device;
adjust relative proportions of the control portion and the
display portion in response to the indication; and
display the keypad as a numeric keypad when the slider
is in a first position relative to the display device, and transition
to display the keypad as one of an alphanumeric ITU-T
standard keypad or a QWERTY keypad when the slider is in at
least a second position relative to the display device while
continuing to present the display portion of the user interface.
App. Br. 31.
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds
van Os’ mobile device 100 presents a user interface on a fixed-size display
device as claimed, the user interface including a control portion configured
to display a QWERTY keypad shown in Figure 5B, a display portion (top
portion of touchscreen 102) configured to display alphanumeric text
associated with input entered via the keypad, and a bar or line separating the
control portion from the display portion. Final Act. 3 (citing van Os 26,
39-40, 4AA5, Figs. ^U5C).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on Kim
for teaching the claimed “movable slider” as movable area 700 in Figures
7A—7B separating a control portion displaying a keypad from a display
portion, the movable slider adjusting the relative proportions of the control
5
Appeal 2017-008355
Application 12/407,803
and display portions. Final Act. 4 (citing Kim || 14, 47-49, 56, Figs. 5, 7 A—
7B). The Examiner further relies on Dutta for teaching multiple keypads, as
claimed. Final Act. 5 (citing Dutta Figs. 4—7, 10). The Examiner also finds
Dutta teaches:
receiving an implicit indication by a user that a slider has
moved on the display screen and adjusting] relative
proportions of control and display areas of a UI on a fixed-size
display device in response to the indication to display a first
configuration of the control portion’s keypad when the slider is
in a first position relative to the display device, and to display at
least a second configuration of the keypad when the slider is in
at least a second position relative to the display device while
continuing to present the display portion of the user interface.
Final Act. 5 (citing Dutta 3:42—67, 4:65—6:19, Figs. 4, 7, and 10).
Appellant contends the combination of van Os, Kim, and Dutta does
not teach or suggest
display the keypad as a numeric keypad when the slider is in a
first position relative to the display device, and transition to
display the keypad as one of an alphanumeric ITU-T standard
keypad or a QWERTY keypad when the slider is in at least a
second position relative to the display device while continuing
to present the display portion of the user interface,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16.
We agree with Appellant. Specifically, we agree the cited parts of van
Os, Kim, and Dutta fail to teach or suggest the use of a moving slider to
switch the display of the keypad on a control portion of a user interface
while continuing to present a display portion of the user interface, as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 16—21; Reply Br. 2—A. Rather, Kim discloses
a movable slider (display area 700) that merely adjusts the font size of a
displayed keypad, by “changing] the size of the input display area, a size of
6
Appeal 2017-008355
Application 12/407,803
a key shape displayed on the input display area and the size of key
identification information, such as a numeral, a character and a symbol,
displayed on the input display area associated with the key shape, at a ratio
of the shift distance [of area 700].” See Kim | 56; Ans. 18—19 (citing Kim
1 56, Figs 7A—7B). However, Kim does not transition between display of
different keypads, as recited in claim 1; “[i]n fact, Kim is silent as to a
transition from a numeric keypad to ‘an alphanumeric ITU-T standard’ or a
‘Qwerty keypad’ based on a slider position,” as claimed. App. Br. 19.
Dutta does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Kim.
Dutta allows a user to customize different touchscreen keypads and prompts
the user to select a default or a customized keypad. App. Br. 19-20 (citing
Dutta 3:57—62, 5:1—3, Figs. 4—7). However, Dutta’s prompting a user to
select a default or a customized keyboard and displaying the keyboard does
not teach “transition[ing from a numeric keypad] to display the keypad as
one of an alphanumeric ITU-T standard keypad or a QWERTY keypad
[based on a slider position],” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 20; see also
Reply Br. 3.
Dutta also does not teach “a separator [that] may move” or “a slider
moving in a first position to a second position based on the default ‘normal’
or customizable/predetermined keypad displayed” as the Examiner asserts.
See Ans. 14. Rather, Dutta merely displays a PDA (Personal Digital
Assistant) screen with a default keyboard “[i]f the user opted for the default
keyboard,” or displays a PDA screen with a customizable keyboard “[i]f the
user opted for the customizable keyboard.” See Dutta 5:5—15, Figs. 5—8, 10.
Thus, Dutta does not transition between the display of different keypads
7
Appeal 2017-008355
Application 12/407,803
based on a movable slider’s position, while continuing to present the same
display portion of a user interface as claim 1 requires.
In addition, the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason based
on rational underpinnings to explain why one having ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to modify Kim or Dutta to transition between display of
different keypads based on a movable slider’s position. App. Br. 21; Reply
Br. 4. See In re Chaganti, 554 F. App’x 917, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It is not
enough to say that... to do so would ‘have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill. ’ Such circular reasoning is not sufficient—more is needed to sustain an
obviousness rejection.”) The Examiner also has not shown that the
additional teachings of van Os, Hotelling, Shimada, and Cohn make up for
the above-noted deficiencies of Kim and Dutta. Particularly, van Os merely
describes creating a contact or content icon and presenting the icon on a
home screen of a mobile device, and fails to teach a movable slider to
transition between the display of different keypads based on the slider’s
position.3 Reply Br. 2—3.
Because the Examiner has not shown the cited combination of
references teaches or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1,
3 We note the Examiner’s statement that “van Os teaches displaying a
numeric keypad of fig. 7A when the movable slider is in a first position and
transitioning to display the numeric keypad of fig. 7B when the slider is in a
second position (par [0056])” (see Ans. 13—14) is inaccurate and not
supported by van Os, which only includes one Figure 7 but not Figures 7 A
or 7B. The Examiner may have intended to refer to Kim’s Figures 7A—7B
and paragraph 56 as in the Final Action (see Final Act. 4). As discussed
supra, Kim’s Figures 7A—7B and paragraph 56 do not disclose transitioning
between displaying different keypads based on a slider’s position.
8
Appeal 2017-008355
Application 12/407,803
independent claims 10 and 15 reciting similar limitations, and claims 2, 11—
13, 19, and 24—32 dependent therefrom. App. Br. 21—22, 32—34 (Claims
App’x). We do not address Appellant’s remaining arguments because the
issues discussed supra are dispositive as to all pending claims on appeal.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 10-13, 15, 19, and 24—32 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2,
10-13, 15, 19, and 24—32.
REVERSED
9