Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 19, 20212020004991 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/562,807 09/28/2017 Jiejing Huang 4576-88500 2081 97698 7590 10/19/2021 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. 4965 Preston Park Blvd, Suite 195E Plano, TX 75093 EXAMINER HUYNH, CONG LAC T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/19/2021 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): aipatent@huawei.com dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JIEJING HUANG, HUANGWEI WU and XI HUANG ___________ Appeal 2020-004991 Application 15/562,807 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2020-004991 Application 15/562,807 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 40–59 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 3. Claims 40, 48 and 56 are independent. Claims 1–39 are cancelled. See Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Introduction “The present invention relates to the field of mobile communications, and in particular, to a method, an apparatus, and a device for enabling a task management interfaceinterface.” Specification ¶ 2. “A task management interfaceinterface on an intelligent terminal is used to display an opened window or a running application program.” Specification ¶ 3. According to Appellant: Embodiments of the present invention provides a method, an apparatus, and a device for enabling a task management interfaceinterface, which can resolve a problem in the prior art that when a user wants to enable a function of an opened window or a running application program included in the task 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 17, 2020), the Reply Brief (filed June 22, 2020), the Final Action (mailed November 14, 2019) and the Answer (mailed May 15, 2020), for the respective details. 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (“The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3. Appeal 2020-004991 Application 15/562,807 3 management interfaceinterface, operations are complex and user experience is affected. Specification ¶ 5. Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized) 40. An electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein instructions are stored in the memory and are configured to be executed by the processor to cause the electronic device to be configured to: detect a first input; initiate a first application installed in the electronic device in response to the first input; detect a second input; initiate a second application installed in the electronic device in response to the second input; detect a third input at a first geographic location and at a first time of day; display a first task management interface in response to the third input, wherein the first task management interface comprises a first preview interface of the first application and a second preview interface of the second application, wherein the first task management interface does not comprise a preview interface of a third application installed in the electronic device, wherein the first application and the second application are running when the third input is detected, and wherein the third application is not running when the third input is detected; 3 Appellant does not argue the claims individually. Appeal Brief 8 (“[C]laims 40, 48, and 56 require displaying a first task management interface.”). Accordingly, we select independent claim 40 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Appeal 2020-004991 Application 15/562,807 4 detect a fourth input at a second geographic location that is different from the first geographic location and at a second time of day that is different from the first time of day; and display a second task management interface in response to the fourth input, wherein the second task management interface includes a third preview interface of the first application, a fourth preview interface of the second application, and an indicator of the third application, wherein the first application and the second application are running when the fourth input is detected, wherein the third application is not running when the fourth input is detected, wherein the third application is selected from a plurality of applications installed in the electronic device based on the second geographic location and the second time of day, and wherein the third application is identified by an operation system of the electronic device as an application being frequently used when the electronic device is at the second geographic location and at the second time of day. Rejection on Appeal Claims 40–59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Action 3–6. ANALYSIS The Examiner determines that the emphasized limitations of representative claim 40, shown above, “are not disclosed in figure 2, paragraphs [0023]-[0024], [0068], [0076]-[0077], [0080]-[0082], [0087]- [0089], [0095]-[0102], [0106], and [0125] as indicated by [Appellant].” Final Action 4. Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s assertion “that the claim limitations of displaying a first task management interface and displaying a second task management interface in independent claims 40, 48, and 56 are not adequately supported by the application.” Appeal Brief 8. Appeal 2020-004991 Application 15/562,807 5 Figure 2 is reproduced below: Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of a task management interface according to the present invention. Specification ¶ 56. [T]he task management interface includes preview interfaces of four application programs: preview interfaces of a first application program, a second application program, a third application program, and a fourth application program, and further includes buttons corresponding to two shortcut functions that are commonly used by a user and of the second application program, and a button corresponding to a shortcut function that is commonly used by the user and of another application program. Specification ¶ 95. In regard to Figure 2, the Examiner finds: [I]t appears that these displayed application programs are running. It is not that the first application and the second application are running, and the third application is not running upon detecting of a third input at all as claimed for the first task management interface. It is also not that the first application and the second application are running, and the third application is Appeal 2020-004991 Application 15/562,807 6 not running upon detecting of a fourth input at all as claimed for the second task management interface. Final Action 4. Appellant contends: First, claims 40, 48, and 56 require displaying a first task management interface. Paragraphs 68-69 and FIG. 2 show that a task management interface (e.g., a first task management interface) is displayed in response to receiving an input from a user such as a double-tapping of a home key or tapping and holding a menu key, Paragraph 69 specifically states that “the task management interface generally displays an opened or running application program.” FIG. 2 shows that the task management interface includes a first application program, a second application program, a third application program, and a fourth application program. Furthermore, step S420 in FIG. 4 specifically states “[i]n response to the instruction for enabling the task management interface, select at least one application program from a local opened window or a running application program.” Appeal Brief 8–9. Appellant concludes that “the application supports displaying a first task management interface.” Appeal Brief 9. We find Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error because the Examiner is not questioning the existence of support for a first task management interface; the Examiner is questioning if there is support for functioning and interaction of the first, second, and third applications as recited in representative claim 40. See Final Action 4. Appellant indicates that paragraph 69 of the Specification discloses that the interface displays an opened or running application. However, paragraph 69 is silent in regard to the functioning of the applications as recited in claim 40 such as, for example, “the first task management interface does not comprise a preview Appeal 2020-004991 Application 15/562,807 7 interface of a third application” and “wherein the first application and the second application are running when the third input is detected, and wherein the third application is not running when the third input is detected.” See Final Action 4. We agree with the Examiner’s determination that the Specification does not provide support for the recited functioning and interaction of the applications as recited in claim 40. Appellant contends: “Second, claims 40, 48, and 56 require displaying a second task management interface” wherein “[p]aragraphs 79-81 [of the Specification] describe displaying a task management interface (e.g., a second task management interface) that selects an application program from a browsing history. The browsing history may be a running application program or an application program that is not running.” Appeal Brief 9. We find Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error. The Specification’s paragraphs 79–81 do not indicate that there is a second task management interface. The recited second task management interface is not merely a duplication of the first management interface, claim 40 requires a second task management interface in response to a fourth input at a second geographic location. See Specification ¶ 81 (“[T]he at least one application program may be selected from the local application program with reference to a current user state, where the current user state may be a current time of the user, or a current geographic location of the user.”). The Specification’s paragraphs 79–81 are silent in regard to displaying a second task management system. Further, paragraph 80 of the Specification discloses “the at least one application program selected according to the another implementation manner may be an opened window, a running application program, or an Appeal 2020-004991 Application 15/562,807 8 application program that is not running.” There is no indication of the interaction of the programs as required in claim 40, for example, “an indicator of the third application, wherein the first application and the second application are running when the fourth input is detected.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection of independent claim 40, as well as independent claims 48 and 56 commensurate in scope. We also sustain the written description rejection of dependent claims 41–47, 49–55 and 57–59. CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 40–59 112(a) Written Description 40–59 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation