Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 29, 2020

2019002650 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2020)

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.
14/518,547 10/20/2014 Jonathan Gaither Knox RPS920140020(710.343) 3117
58127 7590 12/29/2020
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
ROBERTS, SHAUN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2020 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN GAITHER KNOX
Appeal 2019-002650
Application 14/518,547
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–20. Claims App.
Claims 6 and 16 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lenovo
(Singapore) PTE LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002650
Application 14/518,547

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to automated text correction based on context.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, at an input device of the electronic device, a user
text input comprising at least one completed word;
determining, using a processor, a context associated with
the user text input, wherein the determining comprises
determining a sub-topic for at least two completed words from
the at least one completed words and identifying that the sub-
topics for each of the at least two completed words are associated
with an identical topic;
identifying, based on the determining and without
specifying the context, that a sub-topic associated with at least
one of the at least one completed words is not associated with the
context; and
automatically offering, using a processor, a modification
to the at least one of the at least one completed words based on
the determined context.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Medlock US 2012/0029910 A1 Feb. 2, 2012
Jones US 2014/0142926 A1 May 22, 2014
Hochman US 2015/0067486 A1 Mar. 5, 2015

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
Appeal 2019-002650
Application 14/518,547

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 7–13, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hochman and Medlock. Final Act. 3.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hochman, Medlock, and Jones. Final Act. 10.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding a motivation to
combine Hochman and Medlock?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Hochman teaches or
suggests “a sub-topic” as recited in claim 1?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Medlock teaches or
suggests “identifying . . . that the sub-topics for each of the at least two
completed words are associated with an identical topic,” as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner combines the teachings of
Hochman and Medlock. The Examiner finds that Hochman teaches the
limitations of the claim, with the exception of “identifying that the sub-
topics of the least two completed words are associated with an identical
topic.” Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner introduces Medlock to address this
deficiency, finding that it teaches determining a sub-topic for at least two
completed words and “identifying that the sub-topics for each of the at least
two completed words are associated with an identical topic.” Final Act. 4
(citing Medlock ¶¶ 13–15, 31, 34, 53–54, 64, 130, 133–134, Abstract).
Appeal 2019-002650
Application 14/518,547

4
The Examiner notes that “Hochman already teaches determining the
subject matter of messages, which incorporates determining a topic . . . by
analyzing terms and additional information within the message.” Final Act.
5 (citing Hochman ¶¶ 16, 23). The Examiner further notes that “Medlock
teaches determining n-1 terms and their context to be used in determining
appropriate context for next or subsequent terms.” Final Act. 5. The
Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Medlock [into
Hochman] for an improved system to better determine the topic of a
message for modification of a target word.” Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because “[t]he Office has merely
provided a conclusory statement reciting that the teachings of the two
references would be obvious to combine to reach some ambiguous benefit.”
Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 17 (reiterating same argument). Appellant
further argues “that this is inappropriate because there is no discussion
regarding why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine Hochman and Medlock, let alone how the combination of these
references was supposed to work to teach the inventive concepts outlined in
the currently claimed embodiments.” Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 17.
We are not persuaded of error in the combination of references.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner failed to explain why or how the
combination of Hochman and Medlock would have been made. Id.
Appellant, however, does not provide explanation in support of its assertion.
Rather, Appellant merely asserts that the Examiner failed to provide a
sufficient rationale, yet Appellant does not address the specific findings and
reasoning set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action and Answer.
Appeal 2019-002650
Application 14/518,547

5
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that “Hochman . . . teaches
determining the subject matter of messages . . . and automatically offering
modifications.” Ans. 12. The Examiner further explains that in order to
make this determination, “an analysis of the terms [in the message] would
need to be performed.” Ans. 12 (citing Hochman ¶¶ 16, 23). Still further,
the Examiner explains that although this analysis is not explicitly taught,
Hochman suggests performing such an analysis using previous and current
terms to determine a topic. Ans. 12.
Determining that Medlock is closely-related art in the same field of
endeavor, the Examiner further explains that Medlock is introduced to
demonstrate that it was known in the art to analyze user text input to
determine subject matter of messages, and to provide suggestions for
improving the input. Ans. 12 (“Medlock explicitly teaches identifying a
context/topic . . . of a previous term and a current term, and determining if
they are of the same context.”).
The Examiner then provides an explanation of how the combined
teachings of the references would operate:
Hochman would thus look to Medlock to more specifically
analyze n previous terms of a current term in user entered text to
determine if the terms are of the same context/topic (Hochman’s
subject matter). If the current term is not within the same topic
(context, category), then Hochman can modify it to a term that is
stored within that category that fits. Hochman also teaches the
use of probability in determining words, and Medlock further
more specifically discusses how these probabilities are
determined in regards to context and topics.
Ans. 12–13. Having explained how the combined references would work,
the Examiner then proceeds to clarify the reasons why a person of skill in
the art would have made the combination, namely “to allow for the
Appeal 2019-002650
Application 14/518,547

6
modification of incorrect words based on identified topics in the input.”
Ans. 13. The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate
Medlock with Hochman . . . to better determine the topic of a message for
modification of a target word.” Ans. 13.3
Because Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s
detailed reasoning and proffered rationale, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in combining Hochman and Medlock. Further, we find the
Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited teachings of Hochman and
Medlock is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no
more than what one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 416. Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would have been able to fit the
teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a puzzle to
predictably result in a system that analyzes user text input to determine
subject matter of messages, and to provide suggestions for improving the
input. Id. at 420–21. Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the
Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging

3 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The obviousness analysis cannot
be confined by the formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion,
and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of . . . the explicit
content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402
(2007).
Appeal 2019-002650
Application 14/518,547

7
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner
that the proposed modification would have been within the purview of the
ordinarily skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Second Issue
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Hochman teaches
“determining a sub-topic.” Final Act. 3 (citing Hochman ¶¶ 16, 17, 19, 23).
In the Answer, the Examiner further cites Medlock as evidence that it was
known to determine sub-topics for received text segments. Ans. 13 (citing
Medlock ¶ 133).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in determining Hochman teaches
or suggests “determining a sub-topic” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 16–
17. Specifically, Appellant argues that Hochman teaches determining the
subject matter of a message, but does not teach determining a sub-topic
because “a sub-topic is a division of a broader topic” and “although
Hochman may arguably disclose identifying an overall topic associated with
a message, nowhere in Hochman is it disclosed that sub-topics may be
determined for specific words in the message.” Appeal Br. 16.
We are not persuaded of error. We agree with the Examiner that,
Hochman’s determining of the subject matter of messages, combined with
Medlock’s disclosure of determining sub-topics for received text segments
teaches the recited determining a “sub-topic.” As acknowledged by
Appellant, Hochman teaches determining the subject matter of messages by
analyzing the text in the message. See Hochman ¶ 16, 23. Medlock
demonstrates that it was known to analyze text segments to determine where
they fall within a hierarchy of topics. Medlock ¶ 133 (“[T]he classifier
Appeal 2019-002650
Application 14/518,547

8
learns to infer likely topic category labels for new data” and “the set of topic
categories . . . may be hierarchical, e.g. ‘football’ might be a subcategory of
‘sport.’”). Taken together, we agree with the Examiner that the combined
teachings of the references would have rendered “determining a sub-topic”
obvious. We further note that although Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s reliance on Medlock is misplaced (Reply Br. 18 (contrasting
Medlock ¶ 7 with the claim)), Appellant does not address the paragraph
relied upon by the Examiner (Medlock ¶ 133) in rejecting the claim. As
such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred with respect to the
“determining a sub-topic” as recited in claim 1.
Third Issue
The Examiner finds that Medlock teaches or suggests the limitation
“identifying . . . that the sub-topics for each of the at least two completed
words are associated with an identical topic,” as recited in claim 1. Final
Act. 4.
Appellant argues Medlock is deficient because:
At best, Medlock appears to disclose methods for predicting a
character a user intended to input based upon an analysis of the
user’s interaction history with the system. See Medlock at
[0007]. However, nowhere in any of the cited portions of
Medlock is there any discussion regarding the identification of a
sub-topic for words in a message, let alone the determination that
the sub-topics for at least two completed words are associated
with an identical topic.
Appeal Br. 17. We disagree with Appellant.
Although Medlock does not use the word “sub-topic,” Medlock
teaches that multiple words can be identified as being part of the same
context, and that the context may be “indicative of a certain topic.” Medlock
¶ 64. We agree with the Examiner that this description teaches “identifying
Appeal 2019-002650
Application 14/518,547

9
. . . that the sub-topics for each of the at least two completed words are
associated with an identical topic,” because it identifies multiple words (i.e.,
at least two) that are associated with the same context, which is indicative of
a specific topic.
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
dependent claim. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
these claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims
from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7–13,
17–20
103 Hochman,
Medlock
1–3, 7–13,
17–20

4, 5, 14, 15 103 Hochman,
Medlock, Jones
4, 5, 14, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–15,
17–20

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