Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 17, 2022

2020004599 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2022)

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. 15/231,530 08/08/2016 Ho-Gil Gwak SAMS06-00056 1930 135249 7590 03/17/2022 Docket Clerk - SEC P.O. Drawer 800889 Dallas, TX 75380 EXAMINER WATKO, JULIE ANNE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2022 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com munckwilson@gmail.com patents@munckwilson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HO-GIL GWAK Appeal 2020-004599 Application 15/231,530 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JASON J. CHUNG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, 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 49-54 and 57-59. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to determining whether an input for selecting a specific divided area is detected in a divided touch area on a screen divided 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 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004599 Application 15/231,530 2 into a plurality of areas, and if the input for selecting the specific divided area is detected, moving the selected specific divided area to the divided touch area. Abstract. Claim 49, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 49. An electronic device comprising: a display; and a controller configured to: display, via the display, a user interface screen, the user interface screen including a plurality of application icons that can execute application programs and a text input portion, the text input portion being located in a first position of the display; in response to a first input, relocate the text input portion from the first position to a second position of the display, remove at least one first application icon of the plurality of application icons, and relocate at least one second application icon of the plurality of application icons, the second position being lower than the first position, wherein an indicator object indicating the relocation of the text input portion appears at a position higher than the second position while the text input portion is relocated; and in response to a second input detected in the relocated text input portion, relocate the text input portion from the second position to the first position and display, via the display, a keyboard provided in a third position of the display, the third position being lower than the first position. Appeal Br. 1-2 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-004599 Application 15/231,530 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Perez-Noguera US 2008/0042978 A1 Feb. 21, 2008 Ishihara US 2011/0007009 A1 Jan. 13, 2011 Kluttz US 2012/0311466 A1 Dec. 6, 2012 Parker, Google Voice Search & Search By Image Comes To Desktops (June 14, 2011) (https://searchengineland.com/google-voice-search- search-by-image-comes-to-desktops-81633) (last accessed July 31, 2018). MMSMM, Hide Onscreen Keyboard on iPhone (June 24, 2011) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPgo8UzhFIY). REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 49, 51-53, 58-59 103(a) MMSMM, Kluttz 50 103(a) MMSMM, Kluttz, Perez-Noguera 54 103(a) MMSMM, Kluttz, Ishihara 57 103(a) MMSMM, Kluttz, Parker OPINION Claim 49 recites a “display, via the display, a user interface screen, the user interface screen including . . . an indicator object indicating the relocation of the text input portion appears at a position higher than the second position while the text input portion is relocated.” See claim 49 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that MMSMM teaches an indicator object, a “ghost image,” that need not be distinct, and it need not form part of the user interface. Ans. 9. The Examiner finds that the prior art indicator object merely needs to satisfy the plain meaning of the words “indicating the Appeal 2020-004599 Application 15/231,530 4 relocation of the text input portion” and the words “appears at a position higher than the second position while the text input portion is relocated.” Id. The Examiner finds that the MMSMM’s ghost image indicates relocation of the text input portion by trailing the text input portion’s downward movement. Id. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art can see MMSMM’s ghost image simply because it “appears.” Id. The Examiner finds that there is no difference between the prior art indicator object and Appellant’s claimed indicator object. Id. Appellant argues, inter alia, that MMSMM does not teach or suggest “an indicator object” as required by claim 49, that is consistent with the Specification and drawings of the present application, or as would be understood by one skilled in the art. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues with respect to user interfaces, which claim 49 is directed to, an “object” typically refers to a distinct, programmed, element of the user interface. Id. Appellant argues that as shown in the image of MMSMM, relied upon by the Examiner, the text box appears to blur as the text box is moved down the screen. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues however, this “ghost image” appears to simply be a result of rendering the animation; the ghost image is not an element of the user interface. Id. In other words, in MMSMM, when the animation plays and the text box is moved to the bottom portion of the display screen, the display of the text box blurs due to the movement of the text box. Id. Appellant argues that this “ghost image” is simply a by-product of how the animation is rendered. Id. Appellant explains that an “indicator object” as claimed, however, would be understood by one skilled in the art to refer to a programmed element of a user interface. Id. Appellant argues that the “ghost image” relied on by the Final Action is not an element of the user interface. Id. Appeal 2020-004599 Application 15/231,530 5 Appellant argues that there does not appear to be any discernable intention of displaying a distinct “indicator object” in the interface of MMSMM to indicate a relocation of a text box. Id. We agree with Appellant’s argument. “During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Where no explicit definition for a term is given in the specification, the term should be given its ordinary meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Appellant directs us to Figure 1C and paragraphs 32 and 33 for the disclosure regarding the disputed limitation of “wherein an indicator object indicating the relocation of the text input portion appears at a position higher than the second position while the text input portion is relocated.” Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis added) (citing Fig. 1C and Spec. paras. 32 and 33). Figure 1C is reproduced below: Appeal 2020-004599 Application 15/231,530 6 Figure 1C, reproduced above, shows three stacked consecutive small size rectangles arranged from larger to smaller trailing the text input portion and appearing higher than the relocating text input portion. See Fig. 1C. Appellant’s claimed “indicator object” refers to the three stacked consecutive small size rectangles indicating the relocation of the text input portion. See id. and claim 49. Since there is no explicit definition disclosure of the terms “indicator object” we turn to its ordinary meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The technical Appeal 2020-004599 Application 15/231,530 7 meaning of the term “object” as it relates to graphics is defined, in pertinent part, as “3. In graphics, a distinct entity.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., © 2002 Microsoft Corp., pg. 372) (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with Appellant that under the broadest reasonable interpretation one skilled in the art would understand that the claim 49 term of an “object” refers to a distinct, programmed, element of the user interface. See Appeal Br. 12. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that an indicator object, need not be distinct, and it need not form part of the user interface is in error. See Ans. 9. Thus, the “ghost image” of MMSMM, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not constitute an “indicator object” as required by claim 49. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 49 and also the rejections of its dependent claims 50-54 and 57-59. The additional cited references of Kluttz, Perez-Noguera, Ishihara, and Parker do not cure the cited deficiency. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 49-54, and 57-59 are REVERSED. Appeal 2020-004599 Application 15/231,530 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 49, 51-53, 58-59 103(a) MMSMM, Kluttz 49, 51-53, 58-59 50 103(a) MMSMM, Kluttz, Perez-Noguera 50 54 103(a) MMSMM, Kluttz, Ishihara 54 57 103(a) MMSMM, Kluttz, Parker 57 Overall Outcome 49-54, 57- 59 REVERSED