Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019004643 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2020)

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.
14/683,873 04/10/2015 Arnold S. Weksler RPS920150007USNP(710.434) 8795
58127 7590 12/30/2020
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
LEMMA, SAMSON B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2498
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ARNOLD S. WEKSLER, JASON PRATT PARRISH,
JERRY THOMAS PARADISE, and NEAL ROBERT CALIENDO JR.
____________________

Appeal 2019-004643
Application 14/683,873
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Lenovo PTE, is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004643
Application 14/683,873

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate generally to displaying private data on a display
device, which includes the steps of detecting, a factor indicating a need for
privacy; activating, based on the detecting, a privacy filter of the display
device; and displaying, on the display device, the data. Spec., Abst. Claim 1
is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising
receiving, on a display device, a request to display
data;
detecting, using a processor, whether a factor
indicating a need for privacy is present;
activating, responsive to detecting that a factor
indicating a need for privacy is present, an electronic
privacy filter of the display device; and
displaying, on the display device, the data with the
electronic privacy filter, wherein the data with the
electronic privacy filter is viewable by a user.

EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner rejects claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Yellepeddy (US 8,091,138 B2;
issued Jan. 3, 2012) and Sinha (US 2014/015114 A1; published May 29,
2014). Final Act. 5–16.

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 26,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed May 20, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed June 22, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 19, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-004643
Application 14/683,873

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that Yellepeddy
teaches the limitation directed to activating an electronic privacy filter and
displaying data with the electronic privacy filter where the data is viewable
by the user as claimed. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues that:
the system of the currently claimed limitations does not prevent
an authorized user from viewing the confidential content, which
the system disclosed in [Yellepeddy] does, but rather, allows
the authorized user to view the confidential content through an
electronic privacy filter. Applicant respectfully submits that
there is a clear distinction between these two concepts. As an
example, Applicant respectfully submits that if all, or a portion
of, the confidential content is redacted or otherwise obscured,
then that content may not be viewable by a user, which stands
in direct contrast to the currently claimed limitation of
“displaying ... the data with the electronic privacy filter,
wherein the data with the electronic privacy filter is viewable
by a user”. Claim 1.
Appeal Br. 18. Further, Appellant argues that Sinha does not teach this
limitation either as “Sinha shares the same deficiencies already outlined in
Yellepeddy that the sensitive or confidential content is blurred, which
prevents a user from viewing it. See Sinha at [0043].” Appeal Br. 19.
In response to Appellant’s arguments the Examiner states:

In particular, contrary to the appellant argument, from
these citations shown below, the office points out that the set of
already specified conditions by the set of the presentation
policies for accessing or viewing the confidential content meets
Appeal 2019-004643
Application 14/683,873

4
the claim limitation recited as “a factor indicating a need for
privacy is present”.
Furthermore, determining a particular presentation policy
that is applicable to the requested content before the
confidential content is presented to a user meets the claim
limitation recited as “activating, responsive to detecting that a
factor indicating a need for privacy is present, an electronic
privacy filter of the display device.”
Ans. 7 (citing Yellepeddy, col. 4, l. 58– col. 5, l. 16; col. 5, l. 62–col. 6, l.
10; col. 6, l. 65–col. 7, l. 14). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Sinha
teaches the limitation of activing a privacy filter in response to detecting a
factor indicating a need for privacy, Ans. 13–15 (citing Sinha, Fig. 10,
¶¶ 42–43 (discussing obscuring data based upon display rules)).
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Independent claim 1 recites a limitation directed to activating an
electronic privacy filter of the display device, responsive to an indicator of a
need for privacy; and “displaying, on the display device, the data with the
electronic privacy filter, wherein the data with the electronic privacy filter is
viewable by a user.” Independent claims 11 and 20 recite similar
limitations. Thus, each of the independent claims recite limitations directed
to activating a filter and displaying the data with the filter, where the data
with the filter is viewable to a user. Appellant’s Specification discusses the
privacy filter or privacy screen as enabling the use the sensitive material
while minimizing the risk that an unauthorized party gets access, and that the
filter can be implemented by either hardware of software by pixel
manipulation, polarization, displaying, providing an overlay etc. (e.g.,
altering the display of the data). Spec. ¶¶ 32, 39, 41. Thus, when interpreted
in light of the Specification, the claimed privacy filter is a directed to
Appeal 2019-004643
Application 14/683,873

5
altering the manner of displaying the data through which the user can view
the requested data. Initially, it is not clear from the record what feature of
either Yellepeddy or Sinha, the Examiner is considering to be the filter.
Specifically, it is unclear if the Examiner’s rationale is equating
(a) Yellepeddy’s teaching of determining whether the user meets the
presentation policy as being the filter; or (b) Yellepeddy’s teaching of
redacting data and Sinha’s teaching of obscuring data is the claimed filter.
We do not consider the Examiner to have shown that either (a) or (b) meets
the claimed filter, when interpreted in light of the Specification.
The first rationale (a), that Yellepeddy’s teaching of determining
whether the user meets the presentation policy, does not meet the claimed
filter. This determination results in the data either being displayed to the
user with our without redactions (a condition where the data is not displayed
to the user). Yellepeddy, Fig. 4, col. 4, ll. 49–57, col. 10, ll. 40–56. As
discussed below, the redaction can be a filter, because it is altering the
display of the data. However, we do not consider Yellepeddy’s teaching of
displaying the data without redactions to meet the claimed display of data
with the electronic privacy filter because it does not result in altering the
display of the data.
Further, the second rationale (b) that Yellepeddy’s teaching of
redacting data and Sinha’s teaching of obscuring data does not meet the
claimed filter, because while the result in altering the display of the data,
both prevent the user from viewing the data (i.e., they do not allow the user
to view the data as claimed). See, e.g., Yellepeddy, col. 10, ll. 40–56, Sinha
¶ 43. Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has demonstrated that
the combination of Yellepeddy and Sinha teach all of the features of
Appeal 2019-004643
Application 14/683,873

6
independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 20.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Yellepeddy,
Sinha
1–20
REVERSED