Reliance Jio Infocomm USA, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 14, 20212020006748 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 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. 14/788,510 06/30/2015 Nathan A. Smith 141313.00009 8495 33649 7590 05/14/2021 Mr. Christopher John Rourk Jackson Walker LLP 2323 ROSS AVENUE SUITE 600 DALLAS, TX 75201 EXAMINER DAHIR, BILLE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2021 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 NATHAN A. SMITH, JAYABHARATH R. GOLUGURI, RYAN WICK, and TOM BOLLWITT Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19 and 21. See Non-Final Act. 1. Claim 20 has been canceled. Id. at 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A telephonic hearing was held on April 20, 2021. We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM USA, INC. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to providing a user-controlled overlay for a user interface device that allows a user to quickly access applications that are operating on the device. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for controlling a device, comprising: a user-controlled overlay configured to receive one or more user-entered controls and to generate a display on a screen of the device that includes a tab, a panel and a plurality of icons disposed within the panel;2 a touch screen controller configured to receive user- entered screen interface data from the screen and to generate coordinate data from the user-entered screen interface data; a processor coupled to the user-controlled overlay and the touch screen controller, the processor configured to modify the user-controlled overlay to generate a user-interface window for an application associated with a selected icon in response to the coordinate data; and wherein the tab is configured to be manipulated by a user to cause the panel to appear to extend onto the screen and the user-controlled overlay includes a fly-out window associated with one or more of the icons, wherein the content of the fly-out window is generated from an alert received at a wireless interface of the device for an application associated with one of the icons and includes an indication of an action associated with the application. Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.). 2 Appellant asserts the Examiner overlooked the recited term panel during Examination, but we find no basis for that assertion. See Reply Br. 3. Appellant refers to page 3 of the Answer, where the Examiner quotes Appellant’s argument, which omits the term panel. Ans. 3; Appeal Br. 10, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Drucker US 2008/0209327 A1 Aug. 28, 2008 Marcellino US 2009/0305732 A1 Dec. 10, 2009 Haapsaari US 2010/0205563 A1 Aug. 12, 2010 Warner US 2010/0306702 A1 Dec. 2, 2010 Chaudhri US 2011/0252375 A1 Oct. 13, 2011 Louch US 2012/0185789 A1 July 19, 2012 Raleigh US 2013/0132854 A1 May 23, 2013 Wang US 2014/0181726 A1 June 26, 2014 Lai US 2014/0344754 A1 Nov. 20, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai, Wang, and Raleigh. Non-Final Act. 4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai, Wang, Raleigh, and Warner. Non-Final Act. 8. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai, Wang, Raleigh, and Louch. Non-Final Act. 9. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai, Wang, Raleigh, and Chaudhri. Non-Final Act. 10. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai, Wang, Raleigh, and Drucker. Non-Final Act. 11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai, Wang, Raleigh, and Haapsaari. Non-Final Act. 12. Claims 8, 9, 11–14, 16, and 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai and Raleigh. Non-Final Act. 13. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai, Raleigh, and Marcellino. Non-Final Act. 17. Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 4 Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai, Raleigh, and Chaudhri. Non-Final Act. 18. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai, Raleigh, and Haapsaari. Non-Final Act. 19. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai, Raleigh, Haapsaari, and Marcellino. Non-Final Act. 20. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 3 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh 2 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Warner 4 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Louch 5 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Chaudhri 6 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Drucker 7 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Haapsaari 8, 9, 11–14, 16, 18, 19 103 Lai, Raleigh 10 103 Lai, Raleigh, Marcellino 15 103 Lai, Raleigh, Chaudhri 17 103 Lai, Raleigh, Haapsaari 21 103 Lai, Raleigh, Haapsaari, Marcellino OPINION Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 1 and 3 Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Lai teaches “a user- controlled overlay configured to receive one or more user-entered controls and to generate a display on a screen of the device that includes a tab and a plurality of icons disposed within a panel that is associated with the tab,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10, 15; Ans. 2. Appellant also disputes the Examiner’s finding that Lai teaches “a tab that is configured to be manipulated by a user to cause a panel associated with the tab to appear to Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 5 extend onto the screen,” as recited in claim 1. Id.3 Appellant argues that “[e]very embodiment of Lai shows that icon 510 is static and is not generated in response to a user control input, is continually displayed, the icons relate to documents, and not to other controls.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues that Lai does not use the term “panel” and “there is no disclosure of a panel in Lai.” Id. We begin our analysis with a brief review of Lai. Lai generally relates to “directed to techniques for providing enhanced user interfaces.” Lai, ¶ 5. In particular, Lai describes that, in some arrangements, a user interface may be provided ( e.g., by a computing device) that includes a partially-revealed ring comprising at least one row of icons, where a first portion of the ring is visible and a second portion of the ring, different from the first portion, is hidden. The icons included in the ring may be user-selectable to launch applications, open documents, and perform other actions. In addition, the ring may be rotated to selectively reveal other icons that may be included in the hidden portion of the ring. Rotating the ring may also result in some of the visible icons being hidden as they are moved out of the visible area of the user interface. In some embodiments, the ring may be displayed at an edge of a user interface, and the ring may be exposed or hidden in response to user input pulling the ring out of the edge of the user interface or pushing the ring back into the edge of the user interface, respectively. Lai, ¶ 5. Figures 5 and 6 of Lai, relied on by the Examiner, illustrate such user interfaces. See also Lai, ¶¶ 63–65. 3 Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Lai teaches that the user is able to drag the tab away from the edge to reveal a panel (Appeal Br. 10, 15), but such limitation is not recited in claims 1 or 3. Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 6 Figure 1: Lai Figure 5 Figure 2: Lai Figure 6 Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 7 The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Lai, Wang, and Raleigh to teach Appellant’s claimed invention. See Non-Final Act. 4–7. The Examiner finds, in relevant part, Lai teaches a system for controlling a device, comprising: a user-controlled overlay configured to receive one or more user-entered controls (Lai, ¶ 5 “an enhanced user interface that is selectable”) and to generate a display on a screen of a device (Lai, ¶ 22 “a touch screen is configured to display graphical content rendered by a computing device”) that includes a tab (Lai, Fig. 5, ¶ 63 “control element 510”), a panel (Lai, Fig. 6, ¶ 65 “ring 605”), and a plurality of icons disposed within the panel (Lai, Fig 6, ¶ 65 “the icons of ring 605 may be displayed within concentric border circles”). Non-Final Act. 4 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 3–4. The Examiner further finds Lai teaches wherein the tab is configured to be manipulated by a user to cause the panel to appear to extend onto the screen (Lai, ¶¶ 37, 43: the user is able to drag the control element away from the edge to reveal the ring). Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner broadly interprets4 the recited tab to be “a flap or extension that is projected from something.” Ans. 4. Appellant first argues that “[e]very embodiment of Lai shows that icon 510 is static and is not generated in response to a user control input.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner relied on control element 510 in Figure 5 of Lai as the recited tab. Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. Claim 1 requires a user- controlled overlay configured to receive one or more user-entered controls and to generate a display on a screen of a device that includes a tab 4 We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 8 (emphasis added), but does not require on its face that the tab is “generated in response to a user control input,” as Appellant alleges. Appeal Br. 31. Appellant next argues that icon 510 in Lai “is continually displayed.” Id. at 10. Appellant has not sufficiently explained why claim 1 requires that the recited tab not be continually displayed. Claim 1 requires only that the tab is configured to be manipulated by a user to cause the panel to appear to extend onto the screen, which encompasses a tab that is continually displayed. Appellant next argues that “the icons relate to documents, and not to other controls.” Id. Lai teaches, however, “the icons included in ring 605 may correspond to various documents and/or other files, and the name of each document or file may be displayed above the corresponding icon in the ring 605.” Lai, ¶ 65 (emphasis added). Appellant further argues that Lai does not use the term “panel” and “there is no disclosure of a panel in Lai.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner, however, does not contend, nor is the Examiner required to demonstrate, that the identical text of rejected claim 1 appears in the cited references. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Rather, the Examiner finds ring 605 in Lai Figure 6 teaches a panel, and paragraphs 37 and 43 of Lai teach that the user is able to drag the control element 510 (tab) away from the edge to reveal ring 605 (panel). Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 3–4. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings based on paragraphs 37 and 43 of Lai. Instead, Appellant argues in the Reply Brief, “the Office still does not identify anything that is asserted to be a panel in Lai.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues in a conclusory manner that “[n]obody of skill in the art, upon reading the claims in view of the specification, would understand that a panel could be some random group of icons that roughly form a ring Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 9 or some other structure in a figure.” Id. at 4. Appellants do not provide any basis for this argument. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With regard to the Examiner’s interpretation of tab, as recited in claim 1, Appellant argues the Examiner relied “on the extrinsic evidence of the cited prior art for claim construction purposes.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner relied on the prior art in interpreting the claim term, however. Appellant merely points out that the sentence following the Examiner’s interpretation refers to the prior art. Id. (citing Ans. 3). Nor has Appellant persuaded us that the Examiner’s interpretation of tab is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Lai teaches the limitations a user-controlled overlay configured to receive one or more user-entered controls and to generate a display on a screen of the device that includes a tab, a panel and a plurality of icons disposed within the panel and wherein the tab is configured to be manipulated by a user to cause the panel to appear to extend onto the screen, as recited in claim 1. Appellant next challenges the Examiner’s finding that Wang teaches the limitation a processor coupled to the user-controlled overlay and the touch screen controller, the processor configured to modify the user- controlled overlay to generate a user-interface window for an application associated with a selected icon in response to the coordinate data, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10, 15 (emphasis added). Appellant argues that Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 10 “Wang does not disclose a user-controlled overlay,” and “the term ‘overlay’ is not used anywhere in Wang.” Id. at 10. As we explained above, identity of terminology is not required. See Bond, 910 F.2d at 832. Moreover, the Examiner relied on Lai, not Wang, as teaching the recited user-controlled overlay. See Final Act. 4 (citing Lai, ¶ 5). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relied on the combination of Lai, Wang, and Raleigh in rejecting claim 1. Appellant has not persuasively addressed what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Nor has Appellant persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s finding that Figure 3 and paragraph 56 of Wang teach an “overlay.” See Ans. 5. Appellant further argues that Wang teaches away from an overlay because “Wang uses a quick-launch window that does not float over anything (i.e., does not overlay).” Id. at 10–11 (citing Wang ¶ 4). Appellant’s “teaching away” argument fails because Appellant has not identified where Wang actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages a user-controlled overlay, as recited in claim 1. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed”) (citing Fulton). Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 11 For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Wang teaches the limitation a processor coupled to the user-controlled overlay and the touch screen controller, the processor configured to modify the user-controlled overlay to generate a user-interface window for an application associated with a selected icon in response to the coordinate data, as recited in claim 1. Appellant next challenges the Examiner’s finding that Raleigh teaches the user-controlled overlay includes a fly-out window associated with one or more icons, wherein the content of the fly-out window is generated from an alert received at a wireless interface of the device for an application associated with one of the icons and includes an indication of an action associated with the application, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12, 15–16. Appellant argues that “[e]ven if the message of Raleigh is considered to be an alert, it is not associated with a fly-out window, and Raleigh does not even use the term “fly-out.” Id. at 12. Appellant further argues that Raleigh describes Figures 16J and 16K of Raleigh “as disclosing a ‘service launch object notification messages,’ not a fly-out window of a user-controller overlay that includes an indication of an action associated with the application.” Id. As we explained above, the identical text of rejected claim 1 is not required to appear in the cited references. See Bond, 910 F.2d at 832. Moreover, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In claim 1, the user-controlled overlay includes a fly- out window . . . wherein the content of the fly-out window . . . includes an indication of an action associated with the application.” Appeal Br. 31 (Claim App’x). The Examiner concluded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of fly-out window associated with one or more icons is a pop- Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 12 up or window that is superimposed on or extends from one or more icons. Ans. 6. Appellant has not addressed, and therefore has not persuaded us, that the Examiner’s interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Moreover, the Examiner relied on Lai, not Raleigh, as teaching the recited user-controlled overlay. See Final Act. 4 (citing Lai, ¶ 5); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). Appellant has not persuasively addressed what the combined teachings of Lai, Wang, and Raleigh would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill. For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Lai, Wang, and Raleigh teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s combination of the teachings of Lai and Wang. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues that, because Wang teaches away from a user-controlled overlay, the combination is improper. Id. Because, as discussed above, we do not find Appellant’s “teaching away” argument persuasive, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in combining the teachings of Lai and Wang. Moreover, the Examiner provides “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); Non-Final Act. 6, 7; Ans. 9–11. Appellant further challenges the Examiner’s combination of the teachings of Lai and Wang with those of Raleigh. Appeal Br. 16–17. Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 13 Appellant argues the combination is improper because “the combination of Lai and Wang fails to provide a user-controlled overlay as well as many other limitations and that the Office has failed to show that Raleigh cures those deficiencies.” Id. at 16. Because, as discussed above, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of the prior art, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in combining the teachings of Lai and Wang with those of Raleigh. The Examiner provides articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Non-Final Act. 6, 7; Ans. 9–11. Appellant argues dependent claim 3 separately. Appeal Br. 17. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the panel and the plurality of icons are originally hidden and can be relocated by a user after the user activates the tab. Id. at 31. Appellant argues that “Lai does not disclose that the user is able to drag the tab away from the edge to reveal a panel.” Id. at 17. Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 3, which requires only that the panel and plurality of icons are originally hidden and can be relocated by a user after the user activates the tab. Id. at 31. There is no recitation in claim 3 that the user is able to drag the tab away from the edge to reveal a panel. Id. The Examiner finds Figure 5 of Lai illustrates that the ring (panel) and plurality of icons are hidden from view, and can be relocated by a user after the user activates the tab by dragging a handle or portion (the control element or tab) to the desired location. Non-Final Act. 7–8 (citing Lai ¶¶ 35, 37, 43). Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the portions of Lai cited by the Examiner. Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 14 Appellant further argues that the Examiner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning for combining the teachings of Lai, Wang, and Raleigh. Appeal Br. 16. As the Examiner explains in the Answer, the Examiner cites the primary reference, Lai, to teach the additional claim limitation recited in claim 3, so no separate rationale is needed to combine the teachings of Lai, Wang, and Raleigh for claim 3, which depends from claim 1. See Ans. 11. Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s explanation. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites wherein the panel and the plurality of icons are not displayed on the screen in a first state and are displayed on the screen in a second state, and the fly-out window comprises an additional plurality of icons, each for an instantiated application. Appeal Br. 31. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Warner teaches a fly-out window associated with one or more icons of a tab of a user-controlled overlay. Appellant further argues that the terms “fly,” “fly-out,” and “overlay” are not used in Warner. Appeal Br. 12; see also id. at 17. We reiterate that identity of terminology between the claims and the prior art is not required. See Bond, 910 F.2d at 832. The Examiner finds Appellant’s Specification does not define the term “fly-out window,” and concludes the broadest reasonable interpretation is “a pop-up or window.” Non-Final Act. 12. The Examiner finds Warner teaches a drop-down menu that contains a plurality of icons that are each associated with an instantiated Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 15 application. Id. (citing Warner ¶ 3). Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings with regard to Warner’s teachings in paragraph 3. Moreover, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner finds Warner teaches a fly- out window (¶ 3: drop-down menu) that comprises an additional plurality of icons, each for an instantiated application (¶ 3: the drop-down menu contains a plurality of items for the running application), as claim 2 requires. Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner relied on the combined teachings of Lai, Wang, and Raleigh for “a user-controlled overlay configured to receive one or more user-entered controls and to generate a display on a screen of the device that includes a tab and a plurality of icons disposed within a panel that is associated with the tab,” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Id. at 4–7. Thus, the Examiner did not rely on Warner for the limitations Appellant argues. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the panel, the plurality of icons and the tab can be relocated by a user by relocating the tab from a first perimeter edge of the screen to a second perimeter edge of the screen and each of the plurality of icons can be relocated within the panel after selection of the tab. Appeal Br. 31–32. The Examiner finds Louch teaches each of the plurality of icons can be relocated within the panel. Non-Final Act. 9 (citing Louch, ¶ 23). Appellant argues the Examiner erred because “[t]he terms ‘fly,’ ‘fly- out,’ ‘overlay’ and ‘panel’ are not even used in Louch, and the dock of Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 16 Louch is not a tab of a user-controlled overlay.” Appeal Br. 13, 18. Again, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred because identity of terminology is not required (see Bond, 910 F.2d at 832), Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding paragraph 23 of Louch cited by the Examiner, and Appellant does not address the combined teachings of Lai, Wang, Raleigh, and Louch, relied on by the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 9). In particular, the Examiner relies on Lai, not Louch, as teaching the tab, as recited in claim 4. Non-Final Act. 4, 9. In addition, the Examiner finds Lai, not Louch, teaches wherein the panel, the plurality of icons and the tab can be relocated by a user by relocating the tab from a first perimeter edge of the screen to a second perimeter edge of the screen. Id. at 9 (citing Lai, ¶¶ 35, 37, 43, 51) (emphasis added). For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 5 Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the user- controlled overlay further comprises a folder display containing a plurality of icons that is generated when a folder icon in the panel is selected by a user after the user-controlled overlay is activated by a user selecting the tab. Appeal Br. 32 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Chaudhri teaches wherein the user-controlled overlay further comprises a folder display containing a plurality of icons that is generated when a folder icon in the panel is selected by a user. Non- Final Act. 10 (citing Chaudhri, ¶ 233, Figs. 5S, 5T) (emphasis added). In particular, the Examiner finds Chaudhri teaches that a user makes a selection Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 17 on folder icon 5004-7 in Figure 5S, which then presents folder display 5078 that contains two generated icons, as shown in Figure 5T. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner erred because “[t]here is no user- controlled overlay disclosed in Chaudhri, and the terms ‘panel,’ ‘tab’ and ‘user-controlled overlay’ is not used in Chaudhri.” Appeal Br. 13, 19. Again, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred because identity of terminology is not required (see Bond, 910 F.2d at 832), Appellant does not persuasively rebut the portions of Chaudhri cited by the Examiner (Chaudhri, ¶ 233, Figs. 5S, 5T), and Appellant does not address the combined teachings of Lai, Wang, Raleigh, and Chaudhri, relied on by the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 10). In particular, the Examiner relies on Lai, not Chaudhri, as teaching the user-controlled overlay, as recited in claim 5. Non-Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner also finds Lai, not Chaudhri, teaches displaying the panel and the associated plurality of icons after the user has manipulated the tab. Id. at 10 (citing Lai, ¶¶ 35, 37, 43). For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the plurality of icons comprises a plurality of icons that are selected by a network operator and a plurality of icons that are selected by a user and where the placement of the plurality of icons that are selected by the network operator cannot be modified by the user. Appeal Br. 32. The Examiner finds Raleigh teaches wherein the plurality of icons comprises a plurality of icons that are selected by a network operator and a plurality of icons that are selected by a user and a plurality of icons that are Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 18 selected by a user, as recited in claim 6. Non-Final Act. 11 (citing ¶¶ 412, 1173, 1179, 1183, Figs. 16H, 16I). The Examiner finds Drucker teaches where the placement of the plurality of icons that are selected by the network operator cannot be modified by the user, as recited in claim 6. Non-Final Act. 11 (citing Drucker, ¶¶ 21, 63). Appellant argues the Examiner erred because “Drucker does not disclose that the placement of a plurality of icons in a panel of a user- controlled overlay that are selected by a network operator cannot be modified by the user, and instead discloses that objects that are not icons in a panel of a user-controlled overlay that are placed by a third party cannot be moved by a user.” Appeal Br. 14, 20. Appellant’s argument is conclusory, merely reciting the claim limitation, the teachings of Drucker, and stating that the two are not the same. Id. Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the plurality of icons is automatically scrolled within the panel to display an icon associated with the fly-out window if the icon is not being displayed when the alert is received. Appeal Br. 32. The Examiner finds Haapsaari teaches the limitation recited in claim 7. Non-Final Act. 12 (citing Haapsaari ¶ 63). Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 19 Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Haapsaari does not disclose a plurality of icons that is automatically scrolled within the panel to display an icon associated with the fly-out window if the icon is not being displayed when the alert is received. Instead, it discloses that a ribbon that is not a fly-out window may be configured to automatically scroll to display an item having a notification. Appeal Br. 14, 21. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it is conclusory, merely reciting the claim limitation, the teachings of Haapsaari, and stating that the two are not the same. Id.; see Lovin, 652 F.3d at1357. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 8 Independent claim 8 recites, in pertinent part, launching a boot loader of a device. Appeal Br. 32. The Examiner rejects claim 8 over the teachings of Lai and Raleigh, finding in part that Raleigh teaches launching a boot loader of a device. Non-Final Act. 13 (citing Raleigh, ¶ 1785). Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Raleigh does not teach a boot loader, and “the terms ‘boot’ and ‘loader’ are not even used on Raleigh.” Appeal Br. 22. Appellant also makes arguments similar to those made in the context of independent claim 1 for the remainder of the limitations recited in claim 8. Id.; see also Appeal Br. 15–17. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred for the reasons set forth above for claims 1 and 3. We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s “boot loader” argument because identity of terminology is not required (see Bond, 910 F.2d at 832), Appellant’s argument is conclusory (Lovin, 652 F.3d Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 20 at1357), Appellant does not persuasively rebut the portion of Raleigh cited by the Examiner (Raleigh, ¶ 1785), and Appellant does not address what the combined teachings of Lai and Raleigh, relied on by the Examiner, would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill (Non-Final Act. 13). For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 9, 11–14, 16, 18, and 19 In challenging the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9, 11–14, 16, 18, and 19, Appellant presents arguments similar to those made for claims 1 and 3. See Appeal Br. 25. For the reasons set forth above in the section addressing claims 1 and 3, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 11–14, 16, 18, and 19, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 10 Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and further recites receiving an alert; determining an icon associated with the alert from the first plurality of network icons and the icons for the plurality of applications; and generating a fly-out display for the determined icon in the panel. Appeal Br. 33. The Examiner finds the combination of Lai and Raleigh teaches the method of claim 8, Raleigh further teaches receiving an alert (Raleigh ¶ 1040) and generating a fly-out display for the determined icon in the panel. Non-Final Act. 17–18. The Examiner finds Marcellino teaches using a Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 21 notification manager for determining an icon associated with the alert from the icons for a plurality of applications. Id. at 18 (citing Marcellino ¶¶ 88– 89). Appellant makes arguments similar to those made for claims 1 and 3. Appeal Br. 26. In addition, Appellant argues Marcellino does not consider whether the determined icon is a network icon or an icon for a plurality of applications. Id. at 14, 26. Appellant does not explain why claim 10 requires giving “regard to whether it is a network icon or an icon for a plurality of applications.” See id. at 26. The plain language of claim 10 recites no such requirement. Moreover, as the Examiner points out, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 26 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 15 Claim 15 depends from claim 9 and further recites generating a folder display containing a second plurality of icons when a folder icon in the panel is selected by a user. Appeal Br. 33. Appellant presents arguments directed to the teachings of Chaudhri that are similar to the arguments presented for claim 5. Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 22 For the reasons discussed above in the context of claim 5, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 17 Claim 17 depends from claim 8 and further recites scrolling the first plurality of network icons within the panel and generating an alert for one of the icons based on a data message received at a wireless interface of the device, the data message addressed to an application associated with the one of the icons.. Appeal Br. 34. Appellant presents arguments directed to the teachings of Haapsaari that are similar to the arguments presented for claim 7. Id. at 28. Appellant also restates that Raleigh does not teach a boot loader, as recited in claim 8. Id. For the reasons discussed above in the context of claims 7 and 8, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claim 21 The Examiner rejects independent claim 21 over the combined teachings of Lai, Raleigh, Haapsaari, and Marcellino. Non-Final Act 20. Appellant presents arguments previously presented in claims 7 (for Haapsaari) and 10 (for Marcellino). Appeal Br. 29–30. Appellant also argues Raleigh does not teach a “boot loader,” as was argued for claim 8. Id. at 30. For the reasons discussed above in the context of at least claims 7, 8, and 10, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2020-006748 Application 14/788,510 23 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–19 and 21 is AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh 1, 3 2 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Warner 2 4 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Louch 4 5 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Chaudhri 5 6 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Drucker 6 7 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Haapsaari 7 8, 9, 11–14, 16, 18, 19 103 Lai, Raleigh 8, 9, 11–14, 16, 18, 19 10 103 Lai, Raleigh, Marcellino 10 15 103 Lai, Raleigh, Chaudhri 15 17 103 Lai, Raleigh, Haapsaari 17 21 103 Lai, Raleigh, Haapsaari, Marcellino 21 Overall Outcome 1–19, 21 RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation