Ex Parte Nurmi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

12241585 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/241,585 09/30/2008
10949 7590 09/26/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mikko Nurmi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
042933/407670 7334
EXAMINER
SIDDIQUI, MD SAIFUL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO NURMI
Appeal2014-009504
Application 12/241,585
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-22 and 25-28. Claims 23 and 24 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-009504
Application 12/241,585
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to an intelligent input
device lock where selecting one or more keys unlocks an input device of an
apparatus and activates an application of the apparatus substantially at the
same time (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving selection of a combination of at least a first key and
a second key, the first key corresponding to a first application
and the second key corresponding to at least one of an
unlocking function, a second application, or an application
sub-part and,
in response to rece1vmg the selection, causing an input
device of an apparatus to be unlocked and causing the first
application to be activated,
wherein causing the input device of the apparatus to be
unlocked and causing the first application to be activated
occur substantially at the same time.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chaudhri
Sagong
Matas
Flores
US 2007/0150842 Al
US 2008/0188267 Al
US 2008/0320419 Al
US 7,490,045 Bl
2
June 28, 2007
Aug. 7, 2008
Dec. 25, 2008
Feb. 10,2009
Appeal2014-009504
Application 12/241,585
REJECTIONS 1
Claims 10-12 are objected to because of insufficient antecedent basis
for limitations in the claim (Final Act. 5).
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 14--16, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Sagong (Final Act. 6-9).
Claims 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 17, 22, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sagong and Chaudhri (Final Act.
11-16).
Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sagong and Matas (Final Act. 16-18).
Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sagong and Flores (Final Act. 18-19).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 102(a): Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 14-16, and 18-21
Appellant argues their invention as recited in claim 1, is not
anticipated by Sagong (App. Br. 7-10). The issue presented by the
arguments is:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Sagong discloses:
[I]n response to receiving the selection, causing an input
device of an apparatus to be unlocked and causing the first
application to be activated, wherein causing the input
1 Claims 10-12 are objected to because of insufficient antecedent basis for
limitations in the claim (Final Act. 5). This issue is not before us because
the objection is a petitionable matter-not an appealable matter. (3 7 C.F.R.
§§ l.l l 3(a), 1.181; see also MPEP §§ 706.01, 1201 (9th ed., Rev. 9, March
2014)).
3
Appeal2014-009504
Application 12/241,585
device of the apparatus to be unlocked and causing the first
application to be activated occur substantially at the same
time,
as recited in claim 1 (emphases added)?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner's interpretation of the claim is in
error (App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 1-3). Specifically, Appellant asserts the
term "substantially at the same time" would be interpreted by an ordinarily
skilled artisan such that "unlocking and causing the application to be
activated appears to the user to occur at substantially the same time" (App.
Br. 8-9). Appellant points to their Specification, paragraph 442, for support
that an ordinarily skilled artisan, when reading the Specification would
understand "substantially simultaneous unlocking and launching of an
application may occur without further user interaction between the unlocking
and the launching" (Spec. il 44 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 2 ).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding the
interpretation of "substantially at the same time," recited in independent
claims 1 and 16, and "substantially simultaneously," recited in independent
claims 9 and 21. Initially, we determine Appellant has not defined either
term explicitly in their Specification. The Examiner has set forth an
interpretation of "substantially" (Ans. 6) and Appellant has not proffered
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner's
2 We note Appellant refers to paragraph 46 of their Specification; however,
the quoted section appears in paragraph 44 of the Specification. We
consider this a harmless, typographical error.
4
Appeal2014-009504
Application 12/241,585
interpretation. Appellant points to paragraph 44 of their Specification as
support that an ordinarily skilled would understand "substantially
simultaneous unlocking and launching of an application may occur without
further user interaction between the unlocking and the launching" (Reply Br.
2); however, this paragraph does not explicitly define "substantially" nor
does this paragraph provide sufficient context for the term. Furthermore,
Appellant presents conclusory assertions that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would understand the term as asserted, without providing sufficient evidence
or argument to persuade us. Appellant's arguments that "it would be very
clear to one skilled in the art when reading the specification, that the
substantially simultaneous unlocking and launching of an application may
occur without further user interaction between the unlocking and the
launching" (Reply Br. 2) is further unpersuasive as a requirement that no
intervening user interaction occurs between engaging a first key and a
second key, is not recited in the claims.
Moreover, taking a broad, but reasonable, interpretation in light of the
Specification, would not lead an ordinarily skilled artisan to understand a
specific time reference, i.e., whether substantially at the same time and
substantially simultaneously means within "milliseconds" as proposed by
Appellant (App. Br. 9) or ten seconds. Nor do the claims recite a specific
time reference.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in interpreting the
terms "substantially at the same time" and "substantially simultaneously."
According to Appellant, Sagong receives a user input, displays a list
of applications or functions, and receives a second user input which selects
the desired application or function (App. Br. 8). Thus, Appellant contends,
5
Appeal2014-009504
Application 12/241,585
an ordinarily skilled artisan would not interpret the inputs of Sagong to
occur substantially simultaneously, particularly due to the additional user
interaction between the unlocking and launching of an application (id.;
Reply Br. 2).
In light of the interpretation of "substantially at the same time" and
"substantially simultaneously," we are not persuaded by Appellant's
arguments. As set forth by the Examiner, Sagong discloses activating key
button 131 to activate the touch screen and immediately (within a
predetermined amount of time) activating input to execute a function as
desired by the user (Final Act. 6, 8; Ans. 2-3; Sagong i-fi-127, 37, 57-58).
Thus, we are not persuaded Sagong fails to disclose "causing the input
device of the apparatus to be unlocked and causing the first application to be
activated occur substantially at the same time," as recited in claim 1.
Appellant further argues the claims recite "in response to receiving
the selection" and this recitation requires the selection to be both singular
and the combination of two keys (App. Br. 9). We are not persuaded
Sagong fails to disclose the recited "combination of at least a first key and a
second key" and "in response to receiving the selection, causing the input
device" to be unlocked and causing the first application to be activated.
Indeed, Sagong describes, as shown in Figure 11, "receiving input signal
through a specific key button" (step S 120) and "selecting a specific
application" (step S140). Sagong further describes the specific key button
unlocks the device and a user may select (selecting a key) one of the listed
applications or functions within a predetermined time (Sagong i158).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Sagong discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1. Appellant
6
Appeal2014-009504
Application 12/241,585
does not separately argue independent claims 9, 16, and 21 or dependent
claims 3, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 18-20, instead relying on the arguments set
forth with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 10). Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 14--16, and 18-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
for anticipation by Sagong.
35U.S.C.§103(a): Claims 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 17, 22, 25, and 26
Appellant asserts their invention as recited in claim 2 and
commensurately recited in claims 13 and 17, is not obvious over Sagong and
Chaudhri (App. Br. 10-11). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Sagong and Chaudhri teaches or suggests "in an instance in which the
second key corresponds to the application sub-part, causing the first
application to be activated includes causing the sub-part of the first
application to be activated," as recited in claim 2 and commensurately
recited in claims 13 and 17?
ANALYSIS
Appellant points out their Specification states "[t]he features of the
application(s), which will be referred to herein as 'application sub-parts'
may include, as non-limiting examples, new, open, view and search or any
other feature of the fl respective application that are generally accessible
to a user after the respective application has been activated or launched"
(App. Br. 10 (citing Spec. i-f 16)).3 Appellant asserts Chaudhri teaches the
3 We note Appellant refers to paragraph 18 of their Specification; however,
the quoted section appears in paragraph 16 of the Specification. We
consider this a harmless, typographical error.
7
Appeal2014-009504
Application 12/241,585
user first provides an input to unlock the touch screen and after the telephone
application is activated, the user makes an additional input (pressing the
"'accept' key") (App. Br. 11). Thus, according to Appellant, Chaudhri's
activation of the application sub-part does not occur in response to the
selection of the combination of keys; rather, the activation of the application
sub-part occurs in response to additional input by the user (id.).
Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we construe "application
sub-parts" as "features of the application(s)" as set forth in Appellant's
Specification (Spec. i-f 16). We agree with the Examiner that Chaudhri
teaches after activation of an application by a first key, a second key (e.g.,
Accept) causes an application sub-part (feature), e.g., a telephone
conversation being started, to be activated.
We further note Appellant's argument regarding Chaudhri' s user
providing additional input (App. Br. 11) is not persuasive. Appellant is
arguing the references individually while the Examiner is relying on the
combination of Sagong and Chaudhri as teaching the disputed limitation
(Final Act. 13-14). Specifically, the Examiner is relying on Sagong as
teaching "in response to receiving the selection," as recited in independent
claim 1 (id. at 6-8) while Appellant is arguing Chaudhri fails to teach this
limitation (App. Br. 11 ).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Sagong and Chaudhri teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claim 2 and commensurately recited in claims 13 and 17.
Dependent claims 5, 7, 12, 22, 25, and 26 are not argued separately.
Therefore, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. It
8
Appeal2014-009504
Application 12/241,585
follows, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 17, 22, 25, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Sagong and Chaudhri.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 27 and 28 and Claims 4and11
Appellant asserts their invention as recited in claims 27 and 28, is not
obvious over Sagong and Matas because Matas does not cure the
deficiencies of Sagong (App. Br. 11 ). Similarly, Appellant asserts their
invention as recited in claims 4 and 11, is not obvious over Sagong and
Flores because Flores fails to cure the deficiencies of Sagong (id. at 11-12).
As set forth above with respect to claim 1, Appellant has not persuaded us
Sagong fails to disclose the invention as recited in independent claims 1, 9,
16, and21.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Sagong and Matas teaches or suggests the invention as
recited in claims 27 and 28 and the combination of Sagong and Flores
teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 4 and 11. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Sagong and Matas and claims 4 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Sagong and Flores.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 14--16, and 18-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Sagong is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 17, 22, 25, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sagong and Chaudhri is
affirmed.
9
Appeal2014-009504
Application 12/241,585
The Examiner's rejection of claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sagong and Matas is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sagong and Flores is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10