Ex Parte Zhang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13440724 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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.
13/440,724 04/05/2012 Ying Zhang 13674-760 1028
93823 7590 08/31/2017
BGL/Huawei
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
BEUTEL, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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 YING ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 22–38, 41, and 42, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
App. Br. 1–2.
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention “relates to the field of
communications technologies, and in particular, to a method and an
apparatus for dynamic display of an application interface.” Spec. ¶ 2.2 The
Specification explains that “a method for dynamic display of an application
interface” includes “parsing a configuration file of a first application to
obtain a display string identifier of the first application; reading a display
string of the first application from a resource file of the first application
according to the display string identifier; and dynamically displaying the
display string on the interface.” Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 22 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
22. A mobile phone for displaying a user interface of an
application, the mobile phone having a plurality of applications
including a first application, the mobile phone comprising:
a display;
a memory; and
a processor coupled with the memory;
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire a configuration file of a second application;

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed April 5, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed December 8, 2015; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed
February 18, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed May 9, 2016;
“Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 17, 2016; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 19, 2016.
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

3
parse the configuration file for determining a first display
string for the second application;
select the first application into which the first display
string for the second application is added, wherein the
first application is selected among the plurality of the
applications according to the configuration file;
add the first display string for the second application into
a user interface of the first application;
instruct the display to display the first display string for
the second application on the user interface of the first
application to update the user interface of the first
application; and
associate the first display string for the second
application with a first operation of the second
application according to the configuration file, wherein
the first operation of the second application is one of a
plurality of operations of the second application, and the
association of the first display string for the second
application with the first operation of the second
application is preconfigured in the configuration file of
the second application.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Matheson US 6,138,170 Oct. 24, 2000
Aberg US 6,993,362 B1 Jan. 31, 2006
Kelso et al. (“Kelso”) US 2007/0028231 A1 Feb. 1, 2007
Lorenzo et al. (“Lorenzo”) US 2008/0153473 A1 June 26, 2008
Sakai et al. (“Sakai”) US 2009/0138542 A1 May 28, 2009
Goldman US 2014/0040873 A1 Feb. 6, 2014
(filed Aug. 12, 2008)
Liu et al. (“Liu”) CN 1581800 A Feb. 16, 2005
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

4
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 36, 38, and 41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lorenzo and Goldman. Final
Act. 4–15; Ans. 2–13.
Claims 23, 27, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lorenzo, Goldman, and Sakai. Final Act. 15–21;
Ans. 13–19.
Claims 25, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lorenzo, Goldman, and Matheson. Final Act. 21–26;
Ans. 19–24.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lorenzo, Goldman, and Liu. Final Act. 26–27; Ans. 24–25.
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lorenzo, Goldman, Matheson, and Sakai. Final Act. 27–29; Ans. 25–
27.
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lorenzo, Goldman, and Kelso. Final Act. 30–31; Ans. 28–29.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lorenzo, Goldman, and Aberg. Final Act. 31–32; Ans. 29.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 22–38, 41, and 42 in light
of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellant’s assertions regarding Examiner error.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action (Final
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

5
Act. 3–32), Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and Answer (Ans. 2–39). We
add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims
22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 36, 38, and 41
“PARSE,” “SELECT,” AND “ADD”
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 22 because “Lorenzo and Goldman, individually or in combination, at
least do not disclose or suggest” the following limitations in claim 22:
parse the configuration file for determining a first
display string for the second application;
select the first application into which the first
display string for the second application is added,
wherein the first application is selected among the
plurality of the applications according to the
configuration file; [and]
add the first display string for the second
application into a user interface of the first application.
App. Br. 6, 10; Reply Br. 2–3.
More specifically, Appellant asserts that “there is no teaching or
suggestion for Lorenze [sic] to provide a plurality of applications from
which one application is selected into which another application name will
be placed” because “Lorenze [sic] provides only a Single menu installed and
only a Single menu into which an application name will be placed.” App.
Br. 7–8; see Reply Br. 2. Appellant also asserts that Lorenzo does not
disclose or suggest “acquire a configuration file of a second application,”
“parse the configuration file,” or “select the first application . . . according to
the configuration file.” App. Br. 8–9; see Reply Br. 2. Appellant further
asserts that Lorenzo’s menu parameter set (MPS) does not correspond to
a “first display string” because the names or descriptors in a menu parameter
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

6
set have “no association whatsoever with any alleged ‘configuration file’.”
App. Br. 9.
In addition, Appellant contends that Goldman does not disclose or
suggest “a first display string,” “select the first application into which the
first display string for the second application is added,” or “add the first
display string.” App. Br. 9–10. According to Appellant, Goldman “at best
discloses” modifying an application to become a different updated
application rather than adding a “first display string” to an existing
application. Id. at 10.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they address the references individually, in isolation. Where a rejection rests
on a combination of references, an appellant cannot establish
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner relies on Lorenzo for teaching or suggesting most
of claim 22’s limitations. See Final Act. 4–7; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 2–5, 30–35.
For the claimed “configuration file,” however, the Examiner relies on
Goldman, not Lorenzo. See Final Act. 7–8; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5–6, 32. The
Examiner explains that “Lorenzo, by itself does not explicitly disclose the
limitation, ‘configuration file,’” but “Lorenzo modified by Goldman . . .
teaches use of a configuration file.” Ans. 32; see Final Act. 7.
The Examiner finds that Lorenzo discloses parsing a file to determine
a “first display string” for an application. See Final Act. 5; Adv. Act. 2;
Ans. 3, 30–31. An “application file” in Lorenzo includes an “application”
and a “menu parameter set” associated with the “application.” Lorenzo
¶¶ 4–5, 15, Fig. 3; see Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. The “menu parameter set”
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

7
includes an “application name,” a “standardized menu category,” and “one
or more launch parameters.” Lorenzo ¶¶ 4–5, 15–16; see Final Act. 6–7;
Ans. 4–5, 30. The launch parameters cause “the application to launch in a
specific configuration.” Lorenzo ¶¶ 16, 21; see Final Act. 6; Ans. 4.
After a mobile communication device downloads an application file,
the device’s processor parses that file to obtain the menu parameter set,
including the application name. Lorenzo ¶¶ 4–5, 19, 23, Fig. 4, Fig. 6; see
Final Act. 5; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3, 30–31; see also Lorenzo ¶ 13 (describing
processor). Then, the device’s menuing manager adds the application name
obtained from the menu parameter set to the device’s application-menu
display at an appropriate location in the menu of other application names.
Lorenzo ¶¶ 4–5, 15, 20–21, 23; see Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 3–4, 34–35. As the
Examiner properly reasons, “the application name, which is text used to
display the name of the application, is interpreted as the display string for a
second application, obtained by parsing the received file.” Ans. 31.
Further, the Examiner finds that Lorenzo discloses selecting a “first
application into which the first display string” is added and adding “the first
display string . . . into a user interface of the first application.” See Final
Act. 5–6; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3–4, 32–35. The Examiner determines that the
software for the application-menu display corresponds to the claimed “first
application.” Final Act. 4–5, 6; Ans. 3, 4, 31. The Examiner reasons that
loading the software for the application-menu display into the CPU from
memory requires a selection of that software. Ans. 32. As discussed above,
a menuing manager adds the application name to the application-menu
display. Lorenzo ¶¶ 4–5, 15, 20–21, 23; see Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 3–4,
34–35.
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

8
Appellant contends that (1) the term “select” requires “hav[ing] more
than one in the group to perform a selection” and (2) Lorenzo requires no
“selecting” because it teaches “loading only a single piece of software.”
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). But Lorenzo discloses that “mobile
communication devices have sophisticated user interfaces including photo
and video capable displays,” run a “variety of applications,” and support
“voice communication, data communication, and messaging
communication.” Lorenzo ¶¶ 2, 13. Consequently, the mobile
communication device provides a variety of displays to a user, including the
application-menu display. See id. ¶ 3. Lorenzo additionally discloses
multiple applications stored in memory. See id. ¶¶ 13, 15, 17, Fig. 3, Fig. 5;
see also Final Act. 3. By loading the software for the application-menu
display into the CPU from memory, the processor selects that display
application from the group of display applications.
In addition, the Examiner determines that Goldman discloses the
“selection of [an] application from [a] plurality of applications.” Final
Act. 6; Ans. 4. In particular, the Examiner finds that “Goldman teaches
select[ing] the first application into which data for the second application is
added, wherein the first application is selected among the plurality of the
applications according to the configuration file.” Ans. 33. Goldman
explains that an “installation file” updates “some aspect” of an application
already installed on a target computer. Goldman ¶¶ 40–41; Final Act. 7–8;
Ans. 5–6. An update can include “a new version” of the application with
changes to “features and functionality” or just “a change from one code
signing certificate to another.” Goldman ¶¶ 40, 44. Hence, contrary to
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

9
Appellant’s contention, Goldman does not disclose that every update
produces a different application. See App. Br. 10.
Goldman also explains that an “installation file” includes “application
content” and “installation information,” such as an “application name,”
an “icon for the application,” a “signature,” and other information used
during installation. Goldman ¶¶ 42, 46, Fig. 1. The Examiner reasons that
Goldman’s “installation file” corresponds to the claimed “configuration
file.” See Final Act. 7–8; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5–6.
Goldman discloses that when a target computer receives an
installation file, the computer confirms the installation file includes a valid
update by determining whether the installation file contains a signature
matching a signature for one of the already installed applications. Goldman
¶¶ 8, 104–07, Fig. 6; Final Act. 7–8; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5–6, 33. If the
computer finds a match, it updates the corresponding application according
to the installation file. Goldman ¶¶ 8, 104, 107, Fig. 6; Final Act. 8; Adv.
Act. 2; Ans. 6, 33. Hence, Goldman discloses selecting an application from
a plurality of applications according to a configuration file. See Final
Act. 7–8; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5–6, 33–34.
Appellant asserts that the rejection rests on inconsistent positions
because “it simply cannot be true for Lorenzo to both” lack “select one
application from a plurality of applications according to a configuration file,
and at the same time . . . have to ‘select the first application (from a plurality
of applications according to a configuration file) into which the first display
string for the second application is added’.” App. Br. 7.
That assertion mischaracterizes the rejection because the Examiner
does not rely on Lorenzo for teaching a “configuration file” or selecting an
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

10
application according to a configuration file. See Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 5–6,
33–34. Rather, the Examiner relies on Lorenzo for teaching selecting an
application into which the “first display string” is added. See Final Act. 5–6;
Ans. 3–4, 32–35.
“[T]he test for combining references is not what the individual
references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures
taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, Appellant does not
address what the Lorenzo-Goldman combination “taken as a whole would
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art” and, therefore, has not established
Examiner error. App. Br. 6–10; Reply Br. 2–3.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE LORENZO AND GOLDMAN
Appellant argues that “there is no suggestion or motivation to make
the proposed modification” because the modification would: (1) “render
Lorenze [sic] being modified . . . unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,”
i.e., “one single menu into which an application name will be placed”; and
(2) “change the principle of operation of Lorenze [sic] being modified.”
App. Br. 8, 12.
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds: (1) “Lorenzo teaches a dynamic menuing system which
parses a received file to obtain an application name to install in a particular
location of a menu within a software program”; (2) “Goldman teaches
modifying installed applications based on determining which application to
modify based on an installation file”; and (3) “[t]he modification results in
easier migration of software updates from multiple software developers on a
user-end device by allowing remote updating of applications without any
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

11
action from an end user.” Ans. 35–36, 38 (citing Goldman ¶ 16); see Final
Act. 8 (citing Goldman ¶ 16). The Examiner reasons that identifying “an
application to modify” using Goldman’s software-identification technique
“in a mobile device of Lorenzo ensures the correct software on the end user
device is modified,” thus “making the system less prone to user error and
more automatic for a user.” Ans. 36, 38.
Accordingly, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention would have combined Lorenzo and Goldman, including
identifying advantages achieved with the combination. Ans. 35–36, 38; see
Final Act. 8. “[T]he law does not require that the references be combined
for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
reason for combining” references. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 420 (2007).
Moreover, using Goldman’s software-identification technique with
Lorenzo still permits dynamic menuing and the display of menu items in
appropriate categories in Lorenzo’s device. See Ans. 35–36. In Lorenzo’s
“application file,” the “menu parameter set” includes an “application name,”
a “standardized menu category,” and “one or more launch parameters.”
Lorenzo ¶¶ 4–5, 15–16. In Goldman’s “installation file,” the “installation
information” similarly includes an “application name,” an “icon for the
application,” a “signature,” and other information used during installation.
Goldman ¶¶ 42, 46, Fig. 1. Appellant identifies no incompatibility in the
references. See App. Br. 7–8, 12; Reply Br. 3. Further, obviousness does
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

12
not depend on “whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Combining the teachings of references
does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re
Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).
Appellant contends that Lorenzo and Goldman “cannot . . . be
properly combined” because: (1) the menu in Lorenzo “is a system file”;
(2) Goldman concerns “an updating of an installation file”; and (3) “[a]
person of ordinary skill in he [sic] art recognizes that installation files are
very different from system files.” Reply Br. 3. But Goldman does not
update an installation file. Instead, Goldman uses an installation file to
update “some aspect” of an application already installed on a target
computer. Goldman ¶¶ 40–41. Goldman instructs that the already installed
application could constitute a system file. See Goldman ¶ 37; see also
Ans. 36, 38.
SUMMARY FOR INDEPENDENT CLAIM 22
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 for obviousness
based on Lorenzo and Goldman. Hence, we sustain the rejection of
claim 22.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 26 AND 41 AND
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 24, 28, 29, 31, 36, AND 38
Appellant does argue patentability separately for independent
claims 26 and 41 or dependent claims 24, 28, 29, 31, 36, and 38. App.
Br. 6–12; Reply Br. 2–3. Because Appellant does not argue the claims
separately, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 24, 26, 28, 29, 31,
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

13
36, 38, and 41 for the same reasons as claim 22. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 23, 27, and 42
For dependent claim 23, Appellant argues that “there is no suggestion
or motivation to make the proposed modification” because the modification
would “render Lorenze [sic] being modified by Goldman plus Sakai . . .
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,” i.e., “one single menu into which an
application name will be placed.” App. Br. 12. We disagree. As discussed
above, using Goldman’s software-identification technique with Lorenzo still
permits dynamic menuing and the display of menu items in appropriate
categories in Lorenzo’s device. See Ans. 35–36, 38. Sakai’s display of
multiple menu items corresponding to multiple application operations does
not conflict with Lorenzo’s display of menu items in appropriate categories.
See Sakai ¶¶ 12, 70, 98–103, Fig. 5; Final Act. 18–19; Ans. 16–17, 38–39.
Appellant does not argue patentability separately for dependent
claims 27 and 42. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2–3. Because Appellant does not
argue the claims separately, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 27 and 42 for the same reasons as claims 22 and 23. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 25, 30, 32–35, and 37
Appellant asserts that “Liu, Sakai, Matheson, Kelso and Alberg [sic],
individually or in combination do not overcome the deficiencies of Lorenzo
and Goldman” for the independent claims. App. Br. 12. But Appellant does
not make any separate substantive patentability arguments for dependent
claims 25, 30, 32–35, and 37. Id. at 6–13; Reply Br. 2–4. Because
Appellant does not argue the claims separately, we sustain the obviousness
Appeal 2017-003790
Application 13/440,724

14
rejections of claims 25, 30, 32–35, and 37 for the same reasons as claim 22.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22–38, 41, and 42.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED