Younghak Oh et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 3, 2020

14813952 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3, 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.
14/813,952 07/30/2015 Younghak OH 1398-845(YPF201405-0037) 6170
66547 7590 04/03/2020
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
Paul J Farrell
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
MODO, RONALD T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2020 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):
pto@farrelliplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNGHAK OH, SOJI KANG, JIHUN LEE,
YUSIN JUNG, and SEUNGPYO HONG
Appeal 2018-008104
Application 14/813,952
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, and 15, which are all of the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008104
Application 14/813,952

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to a jack interface for connecting two devices
(e.g., earphones to a computer) that triggers execution of various instructions
when a device is inserted into the interface. See Spec. 2.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A trigger operation method of an electronic device, the method
comprising:
determining a mode of an ear jack interface when a trigger
jack device is inserted into an ear jack interface;
changing a signal path of the ear jack interface based on
the determined mode of the ear jack interface;
determining, by the electronic device, whether a memory
of the trigger jack device is in a writing state in which
information has not been recorded, if the mode of the ear jack
interface is a trigger function mode;
when the memory of the trigger jack device is in the
writing state,
identifying the executing task on a screen of the
electronic device,
determining the trigger function related to the
executing task,
configuring, by the electronic device, trigger
execution information according to the determined trigger
function, and
recording the trigger execution information in the
memory of the trigger jack device inserted into the ear jack
interface, through the changed signal path for the trigger
function mode;
Appeal 2018-008104
Application 14/813,952

3
when the memory of the trigger jack device is in a reading
state in which information has been recorded,
reading, by the electronic device, the trigger
execution information stored in the memory of the trigger
jack device, and
executing a trigger function on the basis of the read
trigger execution information; and
executing an earphone function of the electronic device,
through the changed signal path for an earphone function mode,
if the mode of the ear jack interface is the earphone function
mode.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Choi US 2005/0108462 A1 May 19, 2005
Ichieda US 2013/0162538 A1 June 27, 2013
Lee US 2005/0154941 A1 July 14, 2005
Liu US 2003/0144040 A1 July 31, 2003
Luna US 2014/0370818 A1 Dec. 18, 2014
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Liu, Luna, Ichieda, Lee, and Choi. Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites (A) “identifying the executing task on a screen of the
electronic device,” (B) “determining the trigger function related to the
executing task,” and (C) “configuring, by the electronic device, trigger
execution information according to the determined trigger function.”
Independent claim 9 recites commensurate limitations.
The Examiner relies on Ichieda for teaching these limitations. Final
Act. 5; Ans. 3 (citing Ichieda ¶¶ 14, 17). Ichieda discloses a projector to
Appeal 2018-008104
Application 14/813,952

4
display an image and a pen to provide input at various coordinates on the
projected image. See Ichieda ¶¶ 47–50, Fig. 2. The coordinates input by the
pen are then converted and provided to output section 150, which in turn
outputs the coordinate data to PC 300. Id. ¶¶ 72, 74, Fig. 3. “[T]he PC 300
treats the coordinate data output from the output section 150 equivalently to
the coordinate data output by general purpose pointing devices,” “such as a
mouse, a trackball, [or] a digitizer.” Id. ¶¶ 76, 75. The system also stores
“configuration information” that “denotes the data (descriptor) for defining
the configuration” of the general purpose pointing device, such as being
from “the human interface device (HID) class” and more specifically the
“mouse” or “digitizer” sub-class. Id. ¶¶ 39, 14; see also id. ¶¶ 74, 38.
Appellant argues that “the configuration information in Ichieda
corresponds to the type of interface device” (e.g., mouse vs. digitizer) and
therefore “the configuration information stays the same . . . regardless of
what function/task is being performed on the screen,” whereas “in the
present independent claims, the configuration information is different when
the function/task being performed on the screen is different, even if the same
input device is being used.” Appeal Br. 8.
We agree with Appellant that on this record, the Examiner has not
shown how Ichieda’s configuration information is based on the determined
trigger function, which itself must be related to the executing task on the
screen.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9, and their dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 11, 14, and
15.
Appeal 2018-008104
Application 14/813,952

5
DECISION
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected Statute Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 7, 9,
11, 14, 15
§ 103 Liu, Luna, Ichieda,
Lee, Choi
1, 2, 6, 7, 9,
11, 14, 15
REVERSED