Ex Parte Dellinger et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2019

13243045 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/243,045 09/23/2011 Richard R. Dellinger
150004 7590 03/18/2019
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
4655 Executive Dr
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
Plll71US1/77770000281101 9213
EXAMINER
VU,THANHT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2019 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):
patents.us@dentons.com
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD R. DELLINGER and NIKHIL BHOGAL
Appeal2017-005244 1
Application 13/243,0452
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 An oral hearing was held February 27, 2019.
2 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 4.)
Appeal2017-005244
Application 13/243,045
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to an
electronic device with a display of restricted application launch icons while
the device is in a locked state, where detected user input to activate a
restricted application launch icon starts a restricted session for the
corresponding application configured to generate content items while in the
restricted session, while maintaining the device in the locked state for other
applications. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
while an electronic device with a display and a touch-
sensitive surface is in a locked, passcode-protected state:
displaying a lock screen user interface on the
display, the lock screen user interface including a
plurality of restricted application launch icons, each
restricted application launch icon corresponding to an
application;
detecting user input to activate a respective
restricted application launch icon; and,
in response to detecting the user input to activate
the respective restricted application launch icon:
starting a restricted session for a respective
application that corresponds to the respective
restricted application launch icon, wherein the
respective application is configured to generate
and store one or more content items while in the
restricted session; and
maintaining the device in the locked,
passcode-protected state for applications in the
device other than the respective application.
2
Appeal2017-005244
Application 13/243,045
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Peev et al. (US 2010/014638 Al, pub. June 10, 2010)
("Peev") and Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2012/0009896 Al, pub. Jan. 12,
2012) ("Bandyopadhyay"). (Final Act. 2-7.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments present the following issues3:
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Peev and Bandyopadhyay teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitations, "a plurality of restricted application launch icons ... wherein the
respective application is configured to generate and store one or more
content items while in the restricted session." (App. Br. 17-23.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Peev and Bandyopadhyay teaches or suggests the independent claim 13
limitations, "while the first application is in the restricted session ...
presenting content items or representations thereof that meet restricted
session access criteria for the first application; and not presenting content
items or representations thereof that fail to meet the restricted session access
criteria for the first application." (App. Br. 23-28.)
Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Peev and Bandyopadhyay teaches or suggests the claim 2 limitation, "the
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 21, 2016); the Reply
Brief (filed Feb. 8, 2017); the Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 5, 2015);
and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Dec. 15, 2016) for the respective
details.
3
Appeal2017-005244
Application 13/243,045
respective application is disabled from presenting any content items in the
respective application that were not generated while in the restricted
session." (App. Br. 28-30.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner errs. We disagree with Appellants' arguments,
and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-7)
and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-10).
We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and
emphasize the following.
Issue One
In finding Peev and Bandyopadhyay teach or suggest the limitations
of independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Peev of
providing user-defined functionality for selected applications through
display of a locked device, where, for example, icons for certain applications
are displayed, and one of the applications is unlocked when the user taps or
otherwise selects that icon, or, in a second example, additional information
related to the application is displayed when the user selects it. (Final Act. 2-
3; Ans. 8-9; Peev, Abstract, Figs. 5, 6, ,r,r 15, 17, 18, 30, 39-42.)
The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Bandyopadhyay of a
camera device that allows the user to access the camera application with
limited functionality when the camera is in locked mode (e.g., capturing an
image), but blocking other functionality that is available in unlocked mode
4
Appeal2017-005244
Application 13/243,045
(e.g., viewing previously-captured images). (Final Act. 3; Ans. 8-9;
Bandyopadhyay, Abstract, ,r,r 6, 10, 47, 51, 85, 117.)
Appellants argue Peev does not disclose "restricted application launch
icon[ s ]" because the icons illustrated in Peev do not invoke applications that
"generate and store ... content items while in the restricted session," as
required by claim 1. (App. Br. 18.) Rather, Appellants argue, the examples
described in Peev either completely unlock the electronic device when a
displayed application icon is selected, rather than remaining in the
"restricted session," or merely display information pertaining to the
application when the icon is selected, rather than generating and storing
content items. (App. Br. 18-21.) Appellants further argue the Examiner
does not rely on Bandyopadhyay as disclosing restricted application launch
icons, or as curing the "deficiencies" of Peev. (App. Br. 21.)
These arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on the
combination of Peev and Bandyopadhyay as teaching or suggesting the
subject matter of claim 1. (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 8-9.) In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981)) ("[T]he test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). Moreover,
contrary to Appellants' assertions, the Examiner does rely on
Bandyopadhyay, in combination with Peev, as teaching or suggesting
restricted application launch icons:
Peev does not specifically teach the respective
application is configured to generate and store one or more
content items while in the restricted session. However,
Bandyopadhyay teaches the respective application is configured
to generate and store one or more content items while in the
restricted session ....
5
Appeal2017-005244
Application 13/243,045
(Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 8-9.) Indeed, Bandyopadhyay describes a
camera device that, while in locked mode, allows a user to select a camera
application icon, gaining access to a limited set of functionalities, including
taking a picture and sorting it on the device - i.e., "generate and store one
or more content items." (Bandyopadhyay, Fig. 2A, item 234, ,r 93.)
Appellants also argue "there is no legitimate motivation to combine
Bandyopadhyay and Peev in the manner suggested by the Examiner; rather,
the combination is based on impermissible hindsight reasoning." (App. Br.
21.) However, we agree with the Examiner:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the ... to include the teaching of Dandyopadhyay
[sic] in the invention of Peev because it provides users with
quickly accessing a subset of an application's functionality
without the need to unlock the device while the device is in a
locked mode.
(Final Act. 3.) Although, as Appellants argue, and as discussed above, Peev
includes an example in which the entire device is unlocked when a user
selects one of the application icons, Peev more generally teaches the
capability of a user of defining which application icons are displayed during
locked mode, and what type of functionality is available to the
corresponding applications when selected. (Peev ,r,r 17-18.) For example:
The configuration data 116 may also identify particular
applications or functions (e.g., within applications) that are
available for execution by the user 104 through the display 108
of the locked computing device 102. In general, the
functionality available through the display 108 of the locked
computing device 102 is a subset of the functionality available
to the user 104 after the computing device 102 has been
unlocked.
6
Appeal2017-005244
Application 13/243,045
(Peev ,r 15.) Bandyopadhyay, which also teaches providing limited
functionality for a locked device, is closely related to, and naturally
combinable with, Peev.
Moreover, Appellant does not point to any evidence of record that the
resulting combination would be "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior
art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19
(2007)). The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are persuaded the claimed
subject matter exemplifies the principle that "[t ]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over Peev and Bandyopadhyay.
Issues Two and Three
Claim 13 requires, while an electronic device is in a restricted session,
"presenting content items or representations thereof that meet restricted
session access criteria for the first application; and not presenting content
items or representations thereof that fail to meet the restricted session access
criteria for the first application." (App. Br. 34.) Claim 2 requires "the
respective application is disabled from presenting any content items in the
respective application that were not generated while in the restricted
session." (App. Br. 32.) Appellants describe an example of subject matter
7
Appeal2017-005244
Application 13/243,045
covered by these claim limitations: "in some embodiments, pictures
captured during a restricted session of a camera application may be
presented in response to a request to view previously-captured pictures,
while pictures that were not captured during the restricted session are not
displayed." (App. Br. 24.)
In support of the rejections of claims 2 and 13, the Examiner relies on
the same disclosures of Peev and Bandyopadhyay as discussed above.
(Final Act. 3, 6; Ans. 9--10.) Appellants again argue that Peev only discloses
unlocking the device when an application is selected, or displaying limited
information about that application. (App. Br. 24--26, 29.) Appellants also
argue nothing in Bandyopadhyay "discloses or suggests, responsive to a
request to display content items during a restricted session, selectively
displaying only those content items that meet restricted session access
criteria, as claimed." (App. Br. 27.) To the contrary, however,
Bandyopadhyay explicitly discloses functionality essentially identical to the
above-quoted example provided by Appellants: while in locked mode, a
user can take a picture and store and view it, but cannot view previously-
captured images. (Ans. 10; Bandyopadhyay, Abstract, ,r,r 6, 10, 47, 51, 85,
117.)
In addition, Appellants again argue there is no legitimate motivation
to combine Peev and Bandyopadhyay. (App. Br. 27-28.) We are not
persuaded by this argument for the same reasons as discussed above.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 13 as
obvious over Peev and Bandyopadhyay.
8
Appeal2017-005244
Application 13/243,045
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 1, 2, and 13 over Peev and Bandyopadhyay. We also sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 3-12 and 14--23 over Peev and
Bandyopadhyay, which rejections are not argued separately with
particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9