Ex Parte Smith

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

13222337 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
13/222,337 08/31/2011 Hugh Smith HUS-0001 US 5217
25962 7590
SLATER MATSIL, LLP
17950 PRESTON RD, SUITE 1000
DALLAS, TX 75252-5793
EXAMINER
DUONG, HIEN LUONGVAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 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):
docketing @ slatermatsil. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUGH SMITH
Appeal 2016-001179
Application 13/222,337
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1—4, 7—15, 17—23, 26—33, and 35—39, which are all
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is inventor Hugh Smith.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-001179
Application 13/222,337
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to providing a user “with a
lock menu screen, which displays a menu of a plurality of applications that
can be run on his/her phone when the user unlocks/wakes up the device.”
(Aug. 31, 2011 Specification (“Spec.”) 116.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is
reproduced (with minor formatting changes) below:
1. A system for providing a user with deterministic control
over a mobile host device having a touch screen that runs
applications for the user to access when the device is tumed-on
or woken-up, comprising:
at least one processor on the host device; and
a user interface engine configured to mn on the at least one
processor on the host device, in operation the user interface
engine running on the at least one processor:
provides the user with a lock menu application that
is configured to display on the touch screen a lock menu
of a plurality of applications, each of the plurality of
applications being capable of being activated on the host
device when the user unlocks the host device by using a
respective slider, the lock menu application being
configured to always display the plurality of applications
when the lock menu is displayed;
enables the user to select one or more of the
plurality of applications from the lock menu using one or
more of the respective sliders; and
activates the selected one or more of the plurality of
applications on the host device.
(App. Br. 13 (Claims App’x).)
2
Appeal 2016-001179
Application 13/222,337
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Anzures et al.
(“Anzures”)
Michalske et al.
(“Michalske”)
PeevetaL US 2010/0146384 Al
(“Peev”)
Lyon et al. US 2010/0257490 Al
(“Lyon”)
US 7,480,870 B2
US 2009/0205041 Al
Jan. 20, 2009
Aug. 13, 2009
June 10, 2010
Oct. 7, 2010
Claims 1—4, 7—14, 17, 21—23, 26—32, 35 and 39 stand rejected 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anzures in view of Peev.
(See Pinal Office Action (mailed Sept. 11, 2014) (“Pinal Act.”) 3—9.)
Claims 18 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anzures, in view of Peev, and further in view of
Michalske. (See Pinal Act. 9—10.)
Claims 15, 19, 20, 33, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anzures, in view of Peev, and further in
view of Lyon. (See Final Act. 10-12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—4, 7—15, 17—23, 26—33, and 35—39.
3
Appeal 2016-001179
Application 13/222,337
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that:
Anzures fails to teach the lock menu application being
configured to always display the plurality of applications when
the lock menu is displayed. However, Peev teaches this feature.
For example, Peev at par [0017] teaches user identify a particular
functionality desired to be available through the display of the
locked computing device such as drag and drop applications into
a particular region of the display to select those applications to
be available when the device is locked[.]
(Final Act. 4, emphasis added.) Appellant contends “Peev does not teach or
suggest that a purported lock menu application is configured to always
display plural applications when a purported lock menu is displayed
[because] the transformed content items 112 are displayed by the locked
computing device 102 only after the content item 112 has been received.”
(App. Br. 9—10.) According to Appellant, “[w]ithout the received content
item 112, there is no content item 112 to be displayed by the purported lock
menu, and the asserted lock menu application would not be configured to
always display plural applications when the asserted lock menu is
displayed.” (Id. at 10.)
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner has erred. We
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Anzures teaches or suggests that
applications that are selected (i.e., configured) can always be displayed on
the lock screen for selection. (Ans. 2-4.) Appellant, however, contends that
“Anzures (and even Peev) teaches a precondition for an application to be
displayed on a lock menu[, which] is that the application has to be active
before being displayed.” (Reply 3.) According to Appellant, Anzures only
teaches the display of applications that are active application. (Id.) We are
not persuaded because “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
4
Appeal 2016-001179
Application 13/222,337
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981). As the Examiner explains:
The examiner relies on Peev for the modification of Anzures to
allow the user to “configurer! to always display plurality of
applications when the lock menu is displayed”, that is the
configuration of Peev allows the user to identify which
applications will be displayed once the device is in a locked state.
In other words, the user configures those applications that will
always be displayed when the device is in a locked state. Since
the user has the ability to indicate what applications the user
desires to be available during the locked state of the device, and
Anzures teaches the feature of always display the plurality of
applications when the lock menu is displayed, Anzures in view
of Peev therefore teaches the feature of “the lock menu
application being configured to always display the plurality of
applications when the lock menu is displayed” as recites in claim
1,21 and 39.
(Ans. 4—5, underline in original, italics added.) Even assuming arguendo
that the plurality of applications in claim 1 should not be limited to “active
application,” as Appellant contends, Peev teaches or suggests that any
program applications or even functions within applications “are available for
execution by the user 104 through the display 108 of the locked computing
device 102.” (See, e.g., Peev 115.) Even though Appellant contends that
“Peev[] teaches a precondition for an application to be displayed on a lock
menu [that] is that the application has to be active before being displayed,”
Appellant does not explain how the program applications in Peev are “active
application” nor does Appellant respond to the Examiner’s finding regarding
Peev. Importantly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Peev teaches
or suggests a plurality of applications that can be configured to be displayed
on a lock screen. (Ans. 4—5.)
5
Appeal 2016-001179
Application 13/222,337
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 21 and
39, which are not argued separately. (App. Br. 11.) Thus, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 21, and 39, as well as claims 2—4, 7—
15, 17—20, 22, 23, 26—33, and 35—38, which depend either on claim 1 or 21,
and are not argued separately. (Id. at 12.)
DECISION
We sustain the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—4, 7—15,
17-23, 26-33 and 35-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
6