Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 18, 2022

2022000308 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 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. 15/714,887 09/25/2017 Marek BEREZA P29808US1/77770000429101 2134 150004 7590 02/18/2022 DENTONS US LLP - Apple 4655 Executive Dr Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 EXAMINER POSIGIAN, DAVID S. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2022 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): 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 MAREK BEREZA, ADI BERENSON, JEFFREY TRAER BERNSTEIN, LUKAS ROBERT TOM GIRLING, MARK HAUENSTEIN, AMIR HOFFNUNG, WILLIAM D. LINDMEIER, JOSEPH A. MALIA, and JULIAN MISSIG Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 2-16, 18-22, 24-40, 42-58, and 60- 65, which are all of the claims pending in the application. Claims 1, 17, 23, 41 and 59 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on February 2, 2022. We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims relate to “techniques for using avatars and/or image data for enhanced user interactions.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 2 is reproduced below and illustrates the claimed subject matter: 2. An electronic device, comprising: a display; one or more processors; one or more image sensors; a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: displaying, on the display, content in an application, wherein the content is displayed while the application is in a first configuration; while displaying the content, capturing image data from the one or more image sensors of the electronic device; after capturing the image data, receiving a request to navigate away from the content; and in response to receiving the request to navigate away from the content: in accordance with a determination that a first set of content-lock criteria have been met, displaying, on the display, a visual indication of the request to navigate away from the content while preventing navigation away from the content, wherein the first set of content-lock criteria includes a first criterion that is met when the captured image data indicates that an unauthorized user is using the device; and in accordance with a determination that the first set of content-lock criteria have not been met, navigating away from the content in accordance with the request. Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 3 Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art that the Examiner relies on as evidence is: Name Reference Date Chin US 2012/0081282 A1 Apr. 5, 2012 Park et al. (“Park”) US 2014/0085460 A1 Mar. 27, 2014 Fleizach et al. (“Fleizach”) US 2014/0165000 A1 June 12, 2014 Cho et al. (“Cho”) US 2014/0292641 A1 Oct. 2, 2014 Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 8,949,618 B1 Feb. 3, 2015 iPhone 6 Tips - How to Access the Camera from the Lock Screen (“iPhone 6 Tips”) July 2, 20152 REJECTIONS Claims 2-5, 7-10, 14, 19-22, 24-26, 28-31, 35, 39, 40, 42-44, 46- 49, 53, 57, 58, and 60-65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cho and iPhone 6 Tips. Final Act. 3-25. Claims 6, 16, 27, 37, 45 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cho, iPhone 6 Tips, and Lee. Final Act. 26-29. Claims 11-13, 32-34, and 50-52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cho, iPhone 6 Tips, and Park. Final Act. 29-35. Claims 15, 36, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cho, iPhone 6 Tips, and Chin. Final Act. 35-37. Claims 18, 38, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cho, iPhone 6 Tips, and Fleizach. Final Act. 37-39. 2 According to the Examiner, this is the date the prior art reference was uploaded to YouTube. See Final Act. 3-4. Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 4 ANALYSIS Appellant argues that independent claims 2, 20, and 21, and dependent claims 3-5, 7-16, 18, 19, 22, 24-26, 28-40, 42-44, 46-58, and 60-65, are patentable because the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 2 is in error. Appeal Br. 14-15. In particular, Appellant argues that Cho and iPhone 6 Tips, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the first set of content-lock criteria includes a first criterion that is met when the captured image data indicates that an unauthorized user is using the device,” as recited in claim 2. Id. at 15. Appellant argues that the case shown in the upper left hand corner of Cho’s Figure 4 “illustrates that the detected presence of the an [sic] unauthorized user is not a criterion of a first set of content-lock criteria that, when met, prevents navigation away from the content.” Id. at 16. According to Appellant, “Cho’s criteria are based on detecting the presence of a master user to enable processing of touch inputs, rather than detecting an unauthorized user to ignore touch inputs.” Id. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner concluded that [w]hile the claim recites that the first criterion is met when the captured image data indicates that an unauthorized user is using the device, the claim does not preclude other criterion for the first set of content-lock criteria from being considered in addition to the first criterion, nor does it exclude other users from being detected in the captured image. Ans. 5. The Examiner found that case (2) in both Figures 4 and 8 of Cho, along with the descriptive text, teach or suggest that that an unauthorized Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 5 user is using the device. Ans. 5-6, 9 (citing Cho Figs. 4, 8, ¶¶ 32, 56, 61, 86, and 88). Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner mapped the “normal user” taught in Cho to the “unauthorized user” recited in claim 2. Final Act. 5. With regard to Figure 4, Cho teaches that “[i]n case (2) in which only the normal user located in front of the device is detected, the device may not process the received user input because permission of the normal user to control the device in the absence of the master user may threaten security.” Cho ¶ 56; Ans. 5-6. Cho also teaches that “[i]n case 2) in which only the normal user is detected, the device can maintain the display (screen 0) and ignore the received user input (touch X).” Cho ¶ 61. Cho further teaches that “[i]n case 2) [of Figure 8] in which only the normal user is detected, the device can maintain the display (screen 0) and ignore the received user input (touch X).” Id. Rather than rebut the portions of Cho relied on by the Examiner, Appellant focuses its arguments on portions of Cho that the Examiner did not rely on, such as case (3) of Figure 4. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings based on case (2) of Figures 4 and 8, as well as paragraphs 56, 61, and 88 of Cho. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Cho and iPhone 6 Tips teaches or suggests the limitation “wherein the first set of content-lock criteria includes a first criterion that is met when the captured image data indicates that an unauthorized user is using the device,” as recited in claim 2. Appellant further argues there would be no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the received user input of Cho to be a Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 6 request to navigate away from the content, as taught by iPhone 6 Tips, or to modify the ignoring of the user input taught in Cho to include “displaying, on the display, a visual indication of the request to navigate away from the content while preventing navigation away from the content,” as taught by iPhone 6 Tips. Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to modify the received user input of Cho to be a request to navigate away from the content, as taught by iPhone 6 Tips, and modify the teaching of ignoring of the user input in Cho to include displaying, on the display, a visual indication of the request to navigate away from the content while preventing navigation away from the content, as taught by iPhone 6 Tips. Final Act. 7. The Examiner provided two motivations for modifying Cho with the cited teachings of iPhone 6 Tips: to make sure that privacy is maintained, in a neat and convenient way to make sure that photos on a device stay safe and secure (iPhone Tips, pgs. 22-23), and to provide an indication to the user that the device is receiving user inputs and still functioning, i.e. to provide an indication to the user that the device has not malfunctioned and is no longer operating correctly. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 15. Appellant argues that, “[i]nstead of not processing touch inputs when a master user is not present, the Examiner proposed a modified Cho that would do the exact opposite by processing touch inputs and subsequently displaying a response to those inputs when a master user is not presented.” Reply Br. 9. Thus, in Appellant’s view, the Examiner’s proposed modification of Cho changes the principle of operation of Cho. Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 7 Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s rationales for combining the references. Appellant points to Cho’s description that not processing user inputs allows the device to decrease power consumption on a user dependent basis. Appeal Br. 18 (citing Cho ¶ 10 (“Moreover, the display device according to the present specification can optimize power consumption, security and user convenience by detecting a user who uses the display and determining whether or not to process the display and user input on a user dependent basis.”)). Appellant argues that “power savings associated with a lack of a master user or a period of non-use of the device are already taught by Cho and would have provided no motivation to combine Cho and iPhone 6 Tips.” Id. at 10. Appellant further argues that the Examiner relied on “impermissible hindsight and impermissible use of the pending claims as a roadmap” in combining Cho and iPhone 6 Tips. Id.at 18. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. We find the Examiner provides “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Final Act 7-8; Ans. 10-17. In an obviousness analysis, prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted), and we “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 8 patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s proposed modification would alter the principle of operation of Cho with regard to maintaining security, as Appellant argues. See Appeal Br. 18. The basis for Appellant’s argument-“[i]nstead of not processing touch inputs when a master user is not present, the Examiner proposes a modified Cho that would do the exact opposite by processing touch inputs and subsequently displaying a response to those inputs when a master user is not presented”-consists of mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, and are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). The same is true of Appellant’s “principle of operation” argument based on power consumption. See Appeal Br. 18. Moreover, it is well settled that “a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a secondary reference’s features can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Given the limited teachings for which the Examiner relies on iPhone 6 Tips3 and the well-known nature of the teachings of iPhone 6 Tips, we are 3 “[T]o modify the received user input of Cho to be a request to navigate away from the content, as taught by iPhone 6 Tips, and modify the ignoring of the user input of Cho to include displaying, on the display, a visual Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 9 persuaded that the Examiner has adequately shown that an artisan of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Cho and iPhone 6 Tips. As the Examiner explained, the combination would optimize user convenience by displaying, on the display, a visual indication of the request to navigate away from the content, while also maintaining security by ignoring the request. See Ans. 10-13. We also agree with the Examiner that displaying a visual indication of the request to navigate away from the content indicates to the user that the device has not malfunctioned and is still operating properly. See Final Act. 8. As Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging 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). Appellant’s hindsight argument also is not persuasive because Appellant has not identified any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which “operates as indication of the request to navigate away from the content while preventing navigation away from the content.” Final Act. 7. Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 10 a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For these reasons, on this record, we find the Examiner has articulated sufficient “reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as well as the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 20 and 21, and dependent claims 3-5, 7-16, 18, 19, 22, 24-26, 28-40, 42-44, 46-58, and 60-65, grouped with claim 2. With regard to dependent claim 6, Appellant argues that the combination of Cho, iPhone 6 Tips, and Lee does not teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the first set of content-lock criteria is met when the captured image data indicates that the unauthorized user is present without regard to whether or not an authorized user is present.” Appeal Br. 20. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in relying on Lee as teaching “without regard to whether or not an authorized user is present.” Id. Appellant argues that Lee “merely discloses detecting a predetermined input (e.g., a press input with a fingerprint) prior to receiving a selection of information such that the security of the information is maintained regardless of the authorization of the user selecting the information because the predetermined input had been received prior to the selection of the information.” Id. (citing Lee cols. 7:38-43, 8:3-9, 12-36). We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that Cho teaches the limitation “wherein the first set of content-lock criteria is met when the captured image data indicates that the unauthorized user is present.” Final Act. 5 (citing Cho ¶¶ 56, 61), 26 (citing Cho Fig. 4 (case 2), Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 11 ¶¶ 53, 56); Ans. 20. The Examiner relied on Lee as teaching “without regard to whether or not an authorized user is present.” Final Act. 26-27 (citing Lee col. 8:3-9). In the Answer, the Examiner explained that Lee teaches a predetermined input that indicates a user uses the device together with another person (col. 7, lines 28- 46), i.e. an unauthorized user is present without regard to whether or not an authorized user is present, and in response the security on state is maintained. Lee also teaches that the predetermined input may be configured according to various embodiments, for example, the predetermined button may be 45 press input on a home button, a sound control button, etc. included in the device 7010 (Lee [col. 11, lines 41-47]) and that the at least one sensor may include a camera sensor (Lee [col. 4, lines 4-19]). Thus, combining the captured image data of Cho wherein the first set of content-lock criteria is met when the captured image data indicates that the unauthorized user is present, together with the captured data of Lee wherein the security on state of the information is maintained irrespective of whether a user who selects the corresponding information is allowed access, sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the claims, given that Cho teaches if the device operates according to user input when plural users use the device or a user who is not the owner of the device uses the device, personal information stored in the device may be exposed. Ans. 21-22. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument that Lee teaches preventing access to information to authorized users based on receiving a predetermined input from a user before the request to access the information from the user, who may be an authorized user, was received is unavailing. See Ans. 21-22. When an authorized user is present with an unauthorized user, according to claim 6, the content lock criteria is met and the user would be prevented from navigating away even if the authorized Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 12 user is present and provided the input. See id. Thus, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Cho, iPhone 6 Tips, and Lee teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 6. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 2, and the additional reasons discussed for claim 6, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 6, as well as dependent claims 27 and 45, argued as a group with claim 6. See Appeal Br. 8. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-16, 18-22, 24- 40, 42-58, and 60-65. Appeal 2022-000308 Application 15/714,887 13 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 2-5, 7-10, 14, 19-22, 24-26, 28- 31, 35, 39, 40, 42-44, 46-49, 53, 57, 58, 60-65 103 Cho, iPhone 6 Tips 2-5, 7-10, 14, 19-22, 24-26, 28- 31, 35, 39, 40, 42-44, 46-49, 53, 57, 58, 60- 65 6, 16, 27, 37, 45, 55 103 Cho, iPhone 6 Tips, Lee 6, 16, 27, 37, 45, 55 11-13, 32- 34, 50-52 103 Cho, iPhone 6 Tips, Park 11-13, 32- 34, 50-52 15, 36, 54 103 Cho, iPhone 6 Tips, Chin 15, 36, 54 18, 38, 56 103 Cho, iPhone 6 Tips, Fleizach 18, 38, 56 Overall Outcome 2-16, 18-22, 24-40, 42- 58, 60-65 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED