Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2020

14830693 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
14/830,693 08/19/2015 Chanaka G. KARUNAMUNI P22147US1/77770000348101 8087
150004 7590 09/15/2020
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
4655 Executive Dr
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
EXAMINER
JANSEN II, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2020 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):
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patent.docket@dentons.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHANAKA G. KARUNAMUNI, GARY IAN BUTCHER,
IMRAN CHAUDHRI, DUNCAN ROBERT KERR, KEVIN LYNCH,
and CURTIS A. ROTHERT, MONICA JENKINS
____________

Appeal 2019-002364
Application 14/830,693
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF,
and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1, 3–24, 26, 27, 29, and 30, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application.3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on August 11, 2020.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claims 2, 25, and 28 have been canceled.
Appeal 2019-002364
Application 14/830,693

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the invention relates to a sensor probe
and system for time domain reflectometry (Spec. ¶ 2). Claim 1 is illustrative
of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage
medium storing one or more programs, the one or more
programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one
or more processors of an electronic device comprising a touch-
sensitive display, cause the device to:
receive data representing a user input;
determine, based on the data representing the user input,
whether the user input is a cover gesture over the touch-
sensitive display,
wherein determining whether the user input is a cover
gesture includes determining, based on the data representing the
user input, whether a touch has been detected at a threshold
amount of the touch-sensitive display; and
in accordance with a determination that the user input is
the cover gesture over the touch-sensitive display, cause the
device to:
enter a do not disturb (DND) mode; and
disable the display of the touch-sensitive display,
wherein the touch-sensitive display comprises a touch-
sensitive component and a display.
See Appeal Br. 47 (Claims App.).
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3–5, and 29–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chaudhri (US 2013/0332721 Al; pub. Dec. 12, 2013),
Miyazaki (US 2012/0092283 A1; pub. Apr. 19, 2012), and Ok (US
2014/0035853 A1; pub. Feb. 6, 2014). Final Act. 3–20.
Appeal 2019-002364
Application 14/830,693

3
Claims 6–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chaudhri, Miyazaki, Ok, and Pavan (Setup do not Disturb Blocking
Mode on Android with Calendars Sync & Silent Timer, pub. Feb. 4, 2014,
http://androidadvices.com/setup-donot-disturb-blocking-mode/). Final Act.
20–35.
Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chaudhri, Miyazaki, Ok, and Favre (Get blocking mode
functions on your Android thanks to Do Not Disturb, pub. Feb. 3, 2014,
http://androidadvices.com/setup-donot-disturb-blocking-mode/). Final Act.
35–39.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that
the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we concur with
Appellant’s arguments concerning unpatentability under § 103. We add the
following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Chaudhri as disclosing the
recited receiving in a touch sensitive display user input data, determining the
gesture based on the input data, entering a do not disturb (DND) mode, and
disabling the display. Final Act. 3–5 (citing Chaudhri Figs. 1A, 1B, ¶¶ 17–
20, 62). The Examiner further relies on Miyazaki as disclosing using a cover
gesture as a user input and on Ok as disclosing a multi touch finger gesture
that causes the device to perform functions such as disabling the display.
Final Act. 5–8 (citing Miyazaki ¶¶ 124, 131; Ok ¶¶ 10, 13, 31, 36, 76, 85,
89, 93, 101). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to use user inputs, such as a covering gesture,
Appeal 2019-002364
Application 14/830,693

4
disclosed in Miyazaki to enter a DND mode in Chaudhri with additional
functionalities, such as disabling the display in Ok, on the basis that the
produced “results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.” Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred by modifying Chaudhri with
Ok because the combination does not teach or suggest claim 1 feature that
“the same user input cover gesture causes the device to both enter a do not
disturb mode and disable a display.” Appeal Br. 19–20. Appellant asserts
that “the Examiner relies on Chaudhri’s selection of graphical element 102
as a gesture that causes the device to enter a do not disturb mode, and relies
on Ok’s multi touch finger gesture (e.g., which must be moved) as ‘a gesture
to disable the display.’” Appeal Br. 20. According to Appellant, “the cited
art does not teach or suggest a single user input cover gesture that causes a
device to perform the two functions in the above-recited limitations of
claim 1.” Id.4
The Examiner responds by explaining that:
As noted above in previous sections, Appellants’ claim asserts
two options in response to a cover gesture and does not provide
that both functions are actually related and both of the can be
considered mutually exclusive operations that can be performed
in response to a “cover gesture”. Arguably, Chaudhri also
implicitly teaches the selection of element 102 also can
“disable” the display of the device as mentioned above. It
would appear here again based upon these arguments Appellant
is asserting and arguing against claim language Appellant
believes suggests a much narrower limitation than is actually
provided by the claim or supported by the written disclosure.
In response to Appellants argument that the references fail to

4 We do not address Appellant’s other arguments because this issue is
dispositive of the appeal.
Appeal 2019-002364
Application 14/830,693

5
show certain features of Appellants invention, it is noted that
the features upon which Appellants relies are not recited in the
rejected claim(s).
Ans. 20–21 (emphases added).
Chaudhri discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes
selection element 102 for the user to manually initiate quiet hours during
which notifications, such as sound, movement, or illumination, are
suppressed. Chaudhri ¶ 20 (describing GUI 100 for customizing quiet
hours, as shown in Chaudhri’s FIG. lA, reproduced below).

Fig. 1A of Chaudhri
The Examiner’s assertion that the recited “options” in response to a
cover gesture are mutually exclusive (Ans. 20–21) is not supported by
evidence. As stated by Appellant, claim 1 requires a cover gesture that
Appeal 2019-002364
Application 14/830,693

6
causes the device perform two functions: (1) enter a do not disturb (DND)
mode and (2) disable the display. Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner has not
identified any teachings in Chaudhri, or other applied references, to support
the assertion that Chaudhri “implicitly teaches the selection of element 102
also can ‘disable’ the display of the device,” nor do we find any teachings to
that effect in the cited portions of the reference. See Ans. 16. That is, even
if Chaudhri is modified with Miyazaki and Ok to use a cover gesture as an
input, the Examiner has not explained how the modification would make
selecting element 102 also disable the display. Therefore, as further asserted
by Appellant, “Chaudhri, at ¶ [0020], does not teach or suggest any
disabling of the display in accordance with the selection of graphical
element 102” and instead, “merely teaches that the system will not perform
certain actions (i.e., the actions that are suppressed) upon receipt of
potential, future notifications.” Reply Br. 7–8.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
proposed combination does not teach or suggest the recited features of claim
1. The Examiner has not identified any teachings in the other applied prior
art references to cure the above-identified deficiency. Therefore,
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s position
with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1, other independent
claims which recite similar limitations (see claims 29 and 30), as well as the
remaining claims dependent therefrom. See Appeal Br. 53–54 (Claims
App.).

Appeal 2019-002364
Application 14/830,693

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 29,
30
103 Chaudhri, Miyazaki,
Ok
1, 3–5, 29,
30
6–24 103 Chaudhri, Miyazaki,
Ok, Pavan
6–24
26, 27 103 Chaudhri, Miyazaki,
Ok, Favre
26, 27
Overall Outcome 1, 3–24, 26,
27, 29, 30

REVERSED