Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 16, 2022

2022000753 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022)

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. 16/454,884 06/27/2019 Jae Woo CHANG P23527USC3/77770000380203 7564 150004 7590 02/16/2022 DENTONS US LLP - Apple 4655 Executive Dr Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 EXAMINER YI, ALEXANDER J. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2022 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 patent.docket@dentons.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 JAE WOO CHANG, MEGAN M. FROST, JOSHUA B. DICKENS, STEPHEN O. LEMAY, MARCEL VAN OS, RICHARD R. DELLINGER, and LAWRENCE Y. YANG ____________ Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21. A hearing was held on February 2, 2022. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. (Appeal Br. 4.) Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to sharing location information during a message conversation, in which selection of a location-sharing affordance enables a second participant to obtain a first participant’s location information and displays a modified location-sharing affordance. (Abstr.) An “affordance” refers to “a user-interactive graphical user interface object that is, optionally, displayed on the display screen . . . [f]or example, an image (e.g., icon), a button, and text (e.g., hyperlink). . . .” (Spec. ¶ 200.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. An electronic device, comprising: a touch-sensitive surface; a display; one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: displaying, on the display, a message region for displaying a message transcript of messages sent between a first participant and a second participant in a message conversation; displaying a location-sharing affordance; detecting a selection of the location-sharing affordance, wherein detecting a selection of the location- sharing affordance by the first participant comprises detecting a single contact by the first participant; in response to detecting the selection of the location-sharing affordance: Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 3 enabling the second participant to obtain the first participant location information; displaying a modified location-sharing affordance; and displaying a first indication in the message region indicating that the second participant can obtain the first participant location information; detecting a selection of the modified location- sharing affordance; in response to detecting the selection of the modified location-sharing affordance: initiating a process to cease enabling the second participant to obtain the first participant location information; and displaying the location-sharing affordance; and in response to ceasing enabling the second participant to obtain the first participant location information, displaying a second indication in the message region indicating that the second participant cannot obtain the first participant location information. (Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).) REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2016/0294958 A1, pub. Oct. 6, 2016), Bridge (US 2014/0066105 A1, pub. Mar. 6, 2014), and Shan (US 2016/0295384 A1, pub. Oct. 6, 2016). (Final Act. 3-24.) Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 4 ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue:2 Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zhang, Bridge, and Shan teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations, and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 8 and 15. (Appeal Br. 9-23.) ANALYSIS For the claim limitations at issue, the Examiner first relies on the Zhang reference, including Figure 5G of Zhang, reproduced below. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 11, 2021) (herein, “Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 16, 2021) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Sept. 11, 2020) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sept. 17, 2021) (herein, “Ans.”) for the respective details. Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 5 Figure 5G depicts a user interface on a client device, such as a mobile phone, which includes a “Share Location in Map” button that, when pressed, initiates sharing the user’s location on a map. (Zhang, Fig. 5G, ¶¶ 71, 74, 96.) The Examiner associates the button of Figure 4G with the required “location-sharing affordance,” which, when pressed, enables a second participant to obtain a first participant’s location information, as required by the claims. (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner further relies on Bridge, including Figures 3A and 3B reproduced below. Figures 3A and 3B depict graphical user interfaces for a client device, where pressing the “Location” button of Figure 3A causes the interface of Figure 3B to be displayed, and then pressing, for example, the “10 minutes” button of Figure 3B, causes the location of a user to be shared on a map, updated once every ten minutes. (Bridge, Figs. 3A, 3B, ¶¶ 34-35.) The Examiner combines Zhang with Bridge, including equating the “Location” button of Bridge with the “Share Location in Map” button of Zhang, and further Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 6 associates Figure 3B of Bridge with the “modified location-sharing affordance” which is displayed in response to selection of the location- sharing affordance, as required by of the claims. (Final Act. 4-5.) In addition, the Examiner relies on Shan, including Figures 4E and 4J, reproduced below. Figures 4E and 4J illustrate user interfaces for facilitating real-time location sharing - in Figure 4J, user locations represented by icons 420 and 442 are shared on a map, and selection of button 472 “causes second client device 104-2 to exit real-time location sharing,” whereupon the user location represented by icon 420 is no longer shared, as shown on Figure 4E. (Shan, Figs. 4E, 4J, ¶¶ 13, 73, 74, 130.) Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 7 The Examiner associates the presence of icon 420 in Figure 4J with the requirement “displaying a first indication in the message region indicating that the second participant can obtain the first participant location information.” (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner also associates the button 472, which causes the second client device to exit location sharing, with the required “modified location sharing affordance,” which, when selected, initiat[es] a process to cease enabling the second participant to obtain the first participant location information,” as claimed. (Id. at 6.) Further, the Examiner associates the absence of icon 420 in Figure 4E with the requirement “displaying a second indication in the message region indicating that the second participant cannot obtain the first participant location information.” (Id.) Appellant argues that the combination of Zhang and Bridge does not teach “in response to detecting the selection of the location-sharing affordance: enabling the second participant to obtain the first participant location information; [and] displaying a modified location-sharing affordance.” (Appeal Br. 16-19.) Appellant argues that Figure 3B of Bridge is not a “modified location-affordance” because there is nothing in the figure that is a modification of the “Location” button (or the “Share Location in Map” button) in the Zhang/Bridge combination, which the Examiner maps to the original “location-sharing affordance.” (Id. at 18.) Appellant also argues that the Zhang/Bridge combination does not teach the requirement that, “in response to detecting the selection of the location- sharing affordance: enabling the second participant to obtain the first participant location information.” (Id. at 18-19.) Instead, when the “Location” button of the combination is selected, the menu of Bridge Figure Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 8 3B is displayed, which allows the user to select the timing frequency of location sharing, or to cancel the “Location” selection, but not enable location sharing itself. (Id. at 19.) Appellant also argues that the combination of Zhang, Bridge, and Shan does not teach “displaying a second indication in the message region indicating that the second participant cannot obtain the first participant location information,” as required by the claims. (Appeal Br. 19-20.) Appellant argues that the mere absence of icon 420 on the map display of Figure 4E is not “displaying an indication,” as required. (Id. at 20.) In addition, Appellant argues that button 472 in Figures 4E and 4J of Shan cannot serve as the claimed “modified location-sharing affordance” which, when selected, causes “displaying the location-sharing affordance” as required by the claims, because the Examiner already equates the modified location-sharing affordance with the interface of Figure 3B of Zhang, (Appeal Br. 22.) Also, button 472 remains unchanged after it is selected, and does not display the totally unrelated “Location” button in the “Zhang/Bridge combination, which the Examiner equates to the original location-sharing affordance. (Id.) Also, button 472 cannot be both the “location-sharing affordance” and the “modified location-sharing affordance,” because the appearance of button 472 is never changed. Id. In response to Appellant’s argument that Figure 3B of Zhang fails to teach a modified location-sharing affordance, the Examiner states that when the “Location” button of Figure 3A of Zhang is selected, it is “expanded (~modified) to display the location map to be shared and the timing selections for sharing” of Figure 3B. (Ans. 8.) Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 9 In response to Appellant’s argument that the asserted combination does not teach both the location sharing enablement and the display of the modified location-sharing affordance in response to selecting the location- sharing affordance, the Examiner repeats the analysis, discussed above, that Zhang provides the location sharing response to the selection of the location- sharing affordance, and Bridge teaches displaying a modified location- sharing affordance in response to the selection of the location-sharing affordance. (Ans. 9-18.) The Examiner asserts that, because Zhang teaches the location sharing response, “Bridge does not need to teach the limitation as already taught by Zhang.” (Id. at 16.) In response to the argument that the combination does not teach the requirement of displaying an indication that a participant cannot obtain the location information, the Examiner states that a “removed/blank/missing” user icon satisfies this requirement. (Ans. 21.) The Examiner characterizes the absence of an icon as a “whited out” icon, which the Examiner characterizes as “similar” to the greyed-out map disclosed in the specification, which the specification identifies as a location-sharing affordance. (Ans. 24.) In response to Appellant’s argument that button 472 of Shan does not qualify as a modified location-sharing affordance, the Examiner states that Zhang separately teaches the requirement that selecting the modified location-sharing affordance causes display of the original location-sharing affordance, given that selection of the “Cancel” button of Figure 3B of Zhang returns the display to Figure 3A. (Ans. 27-28.) Thus, the Examiner only relies on button 472 of Shan for the requirement that selection of the Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 10 modified location-sharing affordance ceases enabling sharing location information. (Id. at 28-29.) We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has erred. It is not a reasonable interpretation of “modified location-sharing affordance” to conclude that the completely different interface of Bridge Figure 3B is a “modification” of the “Location” button of the Zahn/Bridge combination. (See Reply Br. 5.) Also, because selection of the “Location” button of that combination only generates Figure 3B, but does not enable location sharing, the combination does not teach the claim requirement: “in response to detecting the selection of the location-sharing affordance: enabling the second participant to obtain the first participant location information; [and] displaying a modified location-sharing affordance.” (See id. at 5-7) Also, we agree that the absence of the user icon in Shan cannot serve as a teaching of “displaying a second indication in the message region indicating that the second participant cannot obtain the first participant location information.” (See Reply Br. 10.) In addition, the button 472 of Shan, which remains unchanged, cannot serve as both the “location-sharing affordance” and the “modified location-sharing affordance.” (See id. at 11.) Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 over the combination of Zhang, Bridge, and Shan. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21, which claims depend from claims 1, 8 or 15. Appeal 2022-000753 Application 16/454,884 11 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-21 103 Zhang, Bridge, Shan 1-21 REVERSED