Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 15, 2019

13623382 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2019)

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.
13/623,382 09/20/2012 Zhiyun LI 2012.01.003.MN0 8461
68103 7590 05/17/2019
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
THATCHER, CLINT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2019 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIYUN LI and PANKAJ KUMAR
Appeal 2018-006703
Application 13/623,3 821
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-11, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
as the1 Appellants identify the Applicant, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006703
Application 13/623,382
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to monitoring mobile application
permission settings. Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed
subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A mobile device comprising:
a display; and
a processor configured to:
receive a list of permissions to be monitored, the
list being a subset of available permissions,
determine, when a user has selected an application
for installation in the mobile device, whether the
application requires at least one permission included in
the list of permissions, and
control the mobile device to present an alert to the
user when the user selects the application for installation
and the application requires the at least one permission
included in the list of permissions, wherein each
permission included in the list of permissions to be
monitored represents an action performed by an
application.
The Examiner’s Rejection2
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yang (US 2013/0055411 Al; Feb. 28, 2013) and
Hackbom (US 8,255,991 Bl; Aug. 28, 2012). Final Act. 3-9.
2 In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
However, the Examiner withdrew this rejection in the Answer. Ans. 9.
Thus, this rejection is not pending before us.
2
Appeal 2018-006703
Application 13/623,382
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Yang and Hackbom teaches or suggests “determine, when a user has
selected an application for installation in the mobile device, whether the
application requires at least one permission included in the list of
permissions,” as recited in claim 1. In particular, Appellants argue Yang
teaches monitoring an application’s permissions while the application is
running, not before installation as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-8.
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred because Hackbom teaches
presenting a user with a list of all permissions that an application is
requesting, not a subset of permissions as recited in claim 1. Id. at 7-9.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Yang teaches monitoring permission requests of
mnning applications and alerting a user if the application attempts to access
a pre-selected list of permissions. Ans. 10. The Examiner further finds, and
we agree, Hackbom teaches notifying a user of permissions that an
application intends to access prior to download. Id. The Examiner finds an
3
Appeal 2018-006703
Application 13/623,382
ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified the teachings of Yang to
monitor permission prior to download, as suggested by Hackbom. Id.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they focus on the teachings
of each reference while ignoring the combination of the references. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner explained that the
combination of Yang and Hackbom, not either Yang or Hackbom alone,
discloses these limitations. Ans. 10.
Appellants also argue the Examiner did not provide any reason why
an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Yang and Hackbom, as
proposed. App. Br. 9-11. Appellants argue the proposed combination is
nothing more than the result of improper hindsight reasoning. Id.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner’s
proposed combination modifies the timing of the permission monitoring in
Yang by monitoring application permissions prior to installation, as
proposed by Hackbom. Ans. 10-11. The Examiner finds, and we agree, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to monitor an
application’s permissions prior to installation by the teachings of Hackbom.
See Ans. 11. We agree. Hackbom teaches monitoring application
permissions may occur during application execution, but this creates
constant interruptions that may annoy the user. Hackbom 1:33 42.
Hackbom teaches that by monitoring application permissions prior to
installation, the user only needs to decide on application permissions once.
Id. at 1:46-62.
4
Appeal 2018-006703
Application 13/623,382
Appellants also argue the Examiner’s proposed combination would
render Yang unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, which Appellants
characterize as monitoring applications while they are executing. App. Br.
11. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error because Appellants
characterize the purpose of Yang too narrowly. Appellants have not
persuasively argued why the intended purpose of Yang should be limited to
monitoring applications during execution. Nor have Appellants explained
how monitoring application permissions prior to installation would preclude
also allowing modifications during execution. Accordingly, Appellants have
not persuaded us of Examiner error.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Yang and Hackbom. We also sustain the rejection of
independent claim 7, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments. See
App. Br. 6. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-6 and 8-
11, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments. See id. at 11.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5