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. 11/764,787 06/18/2007 Kelce S. Wilson KW008US 6270 70339 7590 12/22/2014 EXAMINER KELCE WILSON 1205 TERRACE MILL DRIVE MURPHY, TX 75094 WONG, ALBERT KANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2014 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 KELCE S. WILSON ____________ Appeal 2012-005755 Application 11/764,787 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005755 Application 11/764,787 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1 and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.1 THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a more rapid entry of text messages in cell phones that use a 12-key keypad. A cursor movement key placed on the side of a device having a numeric keypad enables a user to more quickly and easily advance the cursor position between letter entries. By placing a cursor movement key in a position such that it can be actuated by a different finger than the one in contact with the keypad, a user will be able to type a text message more rapidly when using only a single hand. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A cellular telephone comprising: a l2-key multi-tap keypad on a first face of the cellular telephone, wherein the cellular telephone is configured to be held in a single typical, adult hand; and a first cursor movement key on a second face of the cellular telephone, wherein the first cursor movement key comprises a cursor advance key that advances a cursor by eliminating the need to wait for a letter selection timer to expire, wherein the first cursor movement key is configured to be actuated by a finger of the hand while the hand is holding the device and a thumb of the hand is in contact with the keypad, and wherein the second face is adjacent to the first face and is oriented approximately perpendicular to the first face. 1 Oral argument was heard on November 13, 2014. A transcript of the hearing will be made of record in due course. 2 Appeal 2012-005755 Application 11/764,787 REFERENCES and THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Motorola RAZR (V3) found available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_RAZR_V3. ANALYSIS Appellant sets forth twelve reasons for analysis of “true patentable novelty” (Br. 6–10). Appellant’s novelty assertions do not point to any error in the Examiner’s obviousness findings and conclusions. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)). Furthermore, “[A]rguments not presented in the brief or reply brief and made for the first time at the oral hearing are not normally entitled to consideration.” MPEP § 1205.02 (8th ed., Rev. 7, July 2008) (citing In re Chiddix, 209 USPQ 78 (Comm’r Pat. 1980)). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(e)(1) (“At the oral hearing, appellant may only rely on evidence that has been previously entered and considered by the primary examiner and present argument that has been relied upon in the brief or reply brief” with an exception not applicable here). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 5. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 5 is affirmed. 3 Appeal 2012-005755 Application 11/764,787 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kis 4