Ex Parte Beaumont

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 31, 2019

14611446 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/611,446 02/02/2015 Suzanne Marion Beaumont 124906 7590 02/04/2019 The Small Patent Law Group LLC 225 S. Meramec, Suite 725 St. Louis, MO 63105 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. RPS920140235US (018-0014) CONFIRMATION NO. 5162 EXAMINER MONK,MARKT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/04/2019 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): docket@splglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUZANNE MARION BEAUMONT Appeal2018-006127 Application 14/611,446 Technology Center 2600 Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject2 claims 1-5, 8-14, 16, 17, 19-21 and 23-28. Claims 6, 7, 15, 18, and 22 are cancelled, according to the Amendment filed on Aug. 14, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Lenovo (Singapore) Pte, Ltd. App. Br. 3. 2 We herein refer to the Specification, filed Feb. 2, 2015 ("Spec."); Final Office Action, mailed July 24, 2017 ("Final Act."); and the Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 6, 2017 ("Br."). No Reply Brief has been filed. Appeal2018-006127 Application 14/611,446 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention "generally relate[s] to methods and devices for dismissing notifications presented on a device." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and read as follows: 1. A method, comprising: receiving communications content at a device; presenting, using a processor, a preview notification on a device, the preview notification presenting a preview portion of the communications content; detecting a gaze event utilizing a camera and processor of the device; and dismissing the notification based on the gaze event. (Br., Claims Appendix, 37). THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) over Han et al., (US 2014/0I98032Al; published July 17, 2014; hereinafter "Han"); and Christie et al., (US 2009/0177981 Al, published July 9, 2009; hereinafter "Christie"). Final Act. 16-26. The Examiner rejected claims 8-14, 16, 21, 24, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) over Han, Christie, and further in view of Pardehpoosh et al., (US 2013/0019237 Al, published Jan. 17, 2013; hereinafter "Pardehpoosh"). Final Act. 26-40. 2 Appeal2018-006127 Application 14/611,446 ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 BASED ON HAN AND CHRISTIE Claims 1-5, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 25 Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 25 as unpatentable over Han and Christie. Appellant first argues that the cited combination fails to teach the claimed preview notification. Br. 12-15. According to Appellant, the Specification distinguishes between the generated preview notification and an incoming message. Br. 12-14. Appellant maintains that Christie and Han only display an incoming message, not the claimed preview notification. Br. 13-15. Similarly, Appellant argues that because Christie only displays a shortened "incoming message," this also does not satisfy the claimed preview notification. We disagree. The Specification, for example, expressly discloses that the notification may be a portion of the text of an incoming email or message. Spec. ,r 40. Similarly, Christie generates and presents a preview notification, as shown in Figure 23B below, that includes a portion of the . . mcommg message. 3 Appeal2018-006127 Application 14/611,446 P,.,:,r:Â«:~tR Mi~l1ifor~,;tiÂ»\'"I l}o,)Â·,1k.i;i - 'l:OQ ,&)(,&~~~ !~ ~--------------. Current Time .. , , .. ,,, 3:3~, Day and oai.e~ ,,, ,,vaU~Â·c-:-~,~>r :rn.):;cÂ· lli Jane Doe,,,21,c HI, there/d~ you want !o spend this weekend together at my new We are not persuaded that Christie's preview of the message that is displayed on a locked screen of a portable device fails to satisfy the recited preview notification. Nevertheless, we do agree with Appellant that the Han and Christie combination fails to teach or suggest dismissing a notification, as required by claims 1, 8, and 17. See Br. 15-16. As Appellant points out, Han describes a way of distinguishing between read and unread messages, but this is not "dismissing" as discussed in the Specification. See, e.g., Br. 16. For example, the Specification identifies that "dismissing" is removing from the display of the device. Spec. , 43. Removing from the display is also consistent with the Specification's stated desire to overcome the disadvantages of the prior art, namely that a user must go through a series of actions to dismiss or remove a notification and privacy concerns. Spec. ,, 3--4. As such, based on the record before us, we are persuaded by 4 Appeal2018-006127 Application 14/611,446 Appellant that merely distinguishing between read and unread messages does not satisfy the claimed "dismissing" limitations. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 25 as unpatentable over Han and Christie. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 BASED ON HAN, CHRISTIE, AND P ARDEHPOOSH Claims 8-14, 16, 21, 24, and 26-28 Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-14, 16, 21, 24, and 26-28 as unpatentable over Han, Christie, and Pardehpoosh. As discussed above, we agree with Appellant that the combination of Han and Christie does not teach or suggest the claimed dismissing of the preview notification. Pardehpoosh does not cure the deficiencies of Han and Christie. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 8-14, 16, 21, 24, and 26-28 as unpatentable over Han, Christie, and Pardehpoosh. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 8-14, 16, 17, 19-21 and 23-28. REVERSED 5