Stephen Hayden. Cotterill et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2019

13077614 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)

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.
13/077,614 03/31/2011 Stephen Hayden Cotterill P10483US1/77770000265101 5877
150004 7590 12/02/2019
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
4655 Executive Dr
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
EXAMINER
TILLERY, RASHAWN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2019 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):
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN HAYDEN COTTERILL, JAKE M. LOGAN,
OLEKSANDR KUVSHYNOV, ERIK M. CRESSALL, BRANDON J.
CRESSALL, and JEFFREY PAUL MCCURDY HULTQUIST
____________

Appeal 2018-001657
Application 13/077,614
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–28, which are all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 An oral hearing scheduled on September 17, 2019, for this appeal has been
waived.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Apple, Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-001657
Application 13/077,614

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to methods and interfaces for
switching between two authentication user interfaces as the user interacts
with the graphical user interface through finger contacts and gestures on a
touch-sensitive surface. See Spec. ¶¶ 6–8.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a display;
a touch-sensitive surface;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more
programs are stored in the memory and configured to be
executed by the one or more processors, the one or more
programs including instructions for:
displaying a first authentication user interface on the
display, the first authentication user interface including a text
entry field for entering a text-based authentication code;
detecting a first input by a user on the touch-sensitive
surface while displaying the first authentication user interface;
in response to detecting the first input, displaying a
second authentication user interface on the display, distinct
from the first authentication user interface, the second
authentication user interface including a plurality of
authentication gesture objects and configured for entering a
gesture-based authentication code;
while displaying the second authentication user interface,
detecting one or more gestures by the user at locations on the
touch-sensitive surface that correspond to locations of at least
two of the plurality of authentication gesture objects on the
second authentication user interface; and
Appeal 2018-001657
Application 13/077,614

3
authenticating the user in accordance with a
determination that the detected one or more gestures correspond
to a gesture-based authentication code for the user.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–6 and 15–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2007/0281666 A1; pub. Dec. 6, 2007),
Wilairat (US 2012/0084734 A1; pub. Apr. 5, 2012), and Kuncl (US
2012/0075098 A1; pub. Mar. 29, 2012). Final Act. 4–10.
Claims 7–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshida, Wilairat, Kuncl, and Bamford (US
2009/0271702 A1; pub. Oct. 29, 2009). Final Act. 10–11.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshida, Wilairat, Kuncl, and Pizano (US 2011/0035598
A1; pub. Feb. 10, 2011). Final Act. 11–12.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshida, Wilairat, Kuncl, and Bentley (US 2009/0133117
A1; pub. May 21, 2009). Final Act. 12–13.
Claims 22–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshida, Wilairat, Kuncl, and Comfort (US
2002/0196274 A1; pub. Dec. 26, 2002). Final Act. 13–14.
Claims 26–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshida, Wilairat, Kuncl, and Terres (US 8,539,550 B1;
iss. Sept. 17, 2013). Final Act. 14.

Appeal 2018-001657
Application 13/077,614

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Yoshida discloses the recited device and the
related components for displaying a first text-based authentication user
interface and a second gesture-based authentication user interface, but not
displaying the second user interface upon detecting a first input on the
touch-sensitive surface. Final Act. 4–6 (citing Yoshida Figs. 1, 13, 14;
¶¶ 32, 72, 145–147, 184). The Examiner relies on Wilairat as disclosing a
number of authentication interfaces for different applications which are
accessed by a leftward gesture for selecting the corresponding interface.
Final Act. 6–7 (citing Wilairat Fig. 3, 10; ¶¶ 40, 46, 80–84). Finally, the
Examiner finds Kuncl discloses accessing two different authentication
modes including a gesture-based user interface. Final Act. 7 (citing Kuncl
Fig. 4B; ¶ 48).
Appellant contends the rejection of claim 1 is in error because
The intended purpose of Yoshida’s device is to enable a
single-location authentication input means as an alternative to
conventional multi-location numerical code authentication so
that a user of a flip phone can be authenticated when the device
is closed. Modifying the device of Yoshida as suggested by the
Examiner renders the device of Yoshida unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose because the device would no longer utilize
the single-location authentication taught by Yoshida.
Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, Yoshida relates to a flip phone that
provides multiple modes of unlocking and uses the side key 19 in a single
location for providing the rhythm tapping inputs in the non-text-based
authentication mode. Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant specifically asserts
Yoshida presents a solution to the problem of presenting the user with an
authentication interface when the flip phone is in the flip closed
Appeal 2018-001657
Application 13/077,614

5
configuration “whereby user authentication is provided by entering a
rhythmic tapping pattern authentication input at a single location on the
device” which “remains exposed when the device is flipped closed such as,
for example, a side key on the device.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant further
argues the proposed combination would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art because modifying Yoshida, as explained by the
Examiner, would not allow the user to unlock the phone by providing an
input at a single location when the flip phone is closed. Appeal Br. 18.3
The Examiner responds by explaining:
The intended purpose and principle of operation of
Yoshida’s device is switching between a text-based
authentication user interface (e.g. conventional unlock code
authentication) and a gesture-based authentication user interface
(e.g. rhythmic tapping authentication). Yoshida discloses that
“it is an object of the present invention to provide an
information processing apparatus that allows easy switching to
the input screen for authentication information for locking and
unlocking (see paragraph [0014]).” In one embodiment,
Yoshida discloses the two authentication input screens can be
switched manually by a user (see paragraph [0206]).
Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds:
In this case, the Examiner contends that it would have been
obvious to an artisan at the time of the invention to include
Wilairat’s teachings of navigating from one authentication input
screen to another using a leftward gesture on a touchscreen and
Kuncl’s teachings of an authentication user interface including
gesture objects in Yoshida's user interface in an effort to
provide a more user-friendly interface since gesture input on a
touchscreen can be useful for event-triggered lock screen panes
to allow quicker access to functionality than other types of

3 We do not address Appellant’s other contentions, including the discussion
of a declaration filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, because this contention is
dispositive of the issue on appeal.
Appeal 2018-001657
Application 13/077,614

6
unlock input, such as password input (see Wilairat, paragraph
[0051]; also see Kuncl, paragraph [0046]).
Ans. 4.
Yoshida identifies difficulty in accessing the numeral keys as the
problem with locking/unlocking flip phones when the phone is in its closed
configuration and the numeral keys are covered. ¶¶ 12–13. The
embodiment shown in Figure 10 of Yoshida relates to registering a lock
rhythm pattern to be used in the subsequent authentication inputs in a flip
phone. See ¶¶ 145–148. Yoshida further discloses switching the
authentication information input screens for inputting authentication
information that locks/unlocks by using a lock number input screen for
inputting a lock number or a lock rhythm pattern input screen for inputting a
lock rhythm pattern, when the numeral keys or the side key 19 is pressed.
¶ 206. When the numeral keys are covered in the closed state and cannot be
accessed for locking/unlocking the phone, Yoshida switches to the rhythm
pattern authentication mode allowing the input by pressing the side key 19.
See ¶¶ 226, 237. Therefore, Yoshida allows for an authentication mode that
does not require the numeral keys and, as described above, uses a single key
for inputting a pre-registered rhythm pattern.
It is not apparent, and the Examiner does not clearly explain, how
modifying Yoshida by providing the authentication screens of Wilairat and
the gesture-based authentication of Kuncl would facilitate the authentication
process for a flip phone in its closed configuration. The Examiner has not
clearly explained how providing additional gesture-based authentication
modes to the flip phone of Yoshida would be feasible because such
modification would require additional features or components that are more
complicated than the disclosed embodiments and would require substantial
Appeal 2018-001657
Application 13/077,614

7
changes to the way a flip phone operates. Further, it is not clear that such
additions would “provide a more user-friendly interface since gesture input
on a touchscreen can be useful for event-triggered lock screen panes to allow
quicker access to functionality than other types of unlock input, such as
password input (see Wilairat, paragraph [0051]; also see Kuncl, paragraph
[0046]),” as reasoned by the Examiner. See Ans. 4.
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
articulated reason for the proposed modification lacks rational underpinnings
and appears to be predicated on “an unsubstantiated blanket assertion”
without considering how the proposed modification to Yoshida would affect
the operation of Yoshida’s device. See Reply Br. 5–7. Therefore,
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s position
with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1.
Remaining Claims
Independent claims 16–18 recite limitations similar to those of claim
1. The Examiner’s application of the remaining references does not make up
for the above-discussed deficiency in the Examiner’s reasoning. See Final
Act. 10–14. Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, we are
persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claims 16–18, as well as claims 2–
15, and 19–28 dependent therefrom.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 15–21 103 Yoshida, Wilairat,
Kuncl
1–6, 15–21
Appeal 2018-001657
Application 13/077,614

8
7–11 103 Yoshida, Wilairat,
Kuncl, Bamford
7–11
12 103 Yoshida, Wilairat,
Kuncl, Pizano
12
13, 14 103 Yoshida, Wilairat,
Kuncl, Bentley
13, 14
22–25 103 Yoshida, Wilairat,
Kuncl, Comfort
22–25
26–28 103 Yoshida, Wilairat,
Kuncl, Terres
26–28
Overall Outcome 1–28

REVERSED