LENOVO (Singapore) PTE. LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 5, 2021

2020001356 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2021)

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.
15/644,114 07/07/2017 GRIGORI ZAITSEV RPS920170069-US-NP 1863
61755 7590 05/05/2021
Kunzler Bean & Adamson - Lenovo
50 W. Broadway
10th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
EXAMINER
AL AUBAIDI, RASHA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2021 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@kba.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GRIGORI ZAITSEV, AXEL RAMIREZ FLORES,
SCOTT EDWARDS KELSO, and JOHN WELDON NICHOLSON
____________________

Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3–5, 8–16, and 18–22. Claims 2, 6, 7, and 17 have been canceled

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers
to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a
patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Appeal
Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114

2
(Appeal Br. 14, 18) (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellant,
[m]obile electronic devices and other computing devices
typically include a login or startup that activates a typical screen
with icons, window of applications running previously, etc. The
user of the devices may want to change the startup so that other
applications may run or other conditions may be set during
startup.

Spec. ¶ 1. With this in mind, Appellant discloses a method and apparatus
for “Determining a Startup Condition in a Dormant State of a Mobile
Electronic Device to Affect an Initial Active State of the Device in a
Transition to an Active State” (Title). Independent claims 1, 16, and 20
recite commensurate limitations regarding start up and activation or wake up
of a mobile electronic device using login information and different gestures
to perform different commands. Exemplary independent claim 1 and
dependent claim 8 recite an apparatus for executing commands in response
to gestures, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and are reproduced
below:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a processor;
a memory that stores code executable by the processor to:
[A] determine a selected startup condition of a
plurality of startup conditions of a mobile electronic
device in a dormant state, the startup condition affecting
an initial active state of the mobile electronic device upon
transition from the dormant state to an active state,
wherein to determine the selected startup condition
Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114

3
comprises the processor to receive a gesture from a user of
a mobile electronic device, the gesture received through a
sensor of the mobile electronic device while the mobile
electronic device is in a dormant state, wherein the gesture
is correlated to the startup condition;
[B] select a command associated with activating the
startup condition, wherein the startup condition differs
from a default startup condition of the mobile electronic
device upon a transition from the dormant state to a default
active state;
[C] receive user login information different from the
gesture, wherein the user login information directs the
mobile electronic device to transition to the active state;
and
[D] execute the command during a transition of the
mobile electronic device to the active state to activate the
startup condition, wherein executing the command is in
response to receiving the user login information and
wherein executing the command during the transition to
the active state brings the mobile electronic device to the
selected startup condition.

Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claims App.) (bracketed lettering, formatting, and
emphases added). Remaining independent claims 16 (method) and 20
(program product comprising a computer readable storage medium)
contain limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1.
8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to receive a gesture
comprises the processor to receive a plurality of gestures, each
gesture mapped to a different command, and further comprising
code executable by the processor to [E] place the received
gestures in a gesture queue in an order that the gestures are
received, wherein to execute the command comprises the
processor to execute at least a first command in the gesture
queue.

Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114

4
Appeal Br. 14–15 (Claims App.) (bracketed lettering, formatting, and
emphases added).
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–5, 10–16, and 18–22 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chng et al. (US 2016/0098076 A1;
published April 7, 2016) (hereinafter, “Chng”) and Palikuqi et al. (US
2018/0200623 A1; published July 19, 2018) (hereinafter, “Palikuqi”). Final
Act. 3–8; Ans. 3–8.
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 8 and 9 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chng, Palikuqi, and Holmes et al.
(US 2017/0357917 A1; published Dec. 14, 2017) (hereinafter, “Holmes”).
Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 8–9.
Principal Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 4–
12) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–8), the following principal issues are
presented on appeal: 2

2 Appellant presents separate arguments in two major groups: (1) claims 1,
3–5, 10–16, and 18–22 (see Appeal Br. 4–11; Reply Br. 2–6); and (2) claims
8 and 9 (see Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 6–7). Separate patentability is not
argued for claims 3–5, 9–16, and 18–22, and Appellant relies upon the
arguments presented as to (i) independent claim 1 for the first group (see
Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 2–6); and (ii) dependent claim 8 for the second
group (see Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 6–7). Independent claims 16 and 20
contain limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1. Based on
Appellant’s arguments, we select (i) claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims consisting of claims 1, 3–5, 10–16, and 18–22; and (ii) claim 8 as
representative of the group of claims consisting of claims 8 and 9. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114

5
(1) Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3–
5, 10–16, and 18–22 as being obvious over the base combination of Chng
and Palikuqi because the combination fails to teach or suggest limitations A,
B, C, and/or D, as recited in representative claim 1?
(2) Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8 and
9 as being obvious over the base combination taken with Holmes because
the combination fails to teach or suggest limitation E, as recited in
representative claim 8?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 3–9; Ans. 3–
9) in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 4–12)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–8) that the Examiner has erred. We have
also reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 9–13). We disagree with Appellant’s contentions,
which address the teachings of Chng, Palikuqi, and Holmes individually, and
fail to address the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of references as
teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations (see, e.g., limitations A–E in
claims 1 and 8 supra).
Issue (1): Claim 1
With regard to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 3–5), and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 9–12) in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114

6
In general, Appellant’s arguments with regard to claim 1 address the
individual shortcomings of Chng and Palikuqi, are conclusory, and do not
address the collective teachings and suggestions of the references. We note
that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but
for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references).
Here, Appellant generally argues that neither Chng nor Palikuqi
individually discloses limitations A–D recited in claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 4–
9; Reply Br. 2–6). However, these conclusory statements are not persuasive
to show the Examiner erred in relying on the combination of references in
teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations. Instead, as to claim 1, we
find the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and response to Appellant’s
arguments (see Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 3–5, 9–13) to be reasonable.
Appellant’s arguments as to claim 1 concerning the individual shortcomings
in the teachings of Chng and Palikuqi are not persuasive, and are not
convincing of the non-obviousness of the claimed invention set forth in
claim 1.
The Examiner finds (see Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–4, 10), and we agree,
that Chng teaches active state startup and command selection as claimed.
Chng teaches activation of a flashlight application upon startup (see Ans. 10
(citing Chng ¶ 53)), which teaches or suggests the startup recited in claim 1
and described in Appellant’s Specification (see Spec. ¶ 62 (“the startup
condition may include an active state with a flashlight application”); see also
Ans. 10 (citing Spec. ¶ 62)).
Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114

7
The Examiner finds (see Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 5, 10–12), and we
agree, that Palikuqi (¶ 35) teaches or suggests using a fingerprint as login
information. Palikuqi teaches selecting or opening certain files or folders
when a fingerprint is recognized (see ¶ 35), and using different fingerprints
or gestures for different commands (see ¶¶ 34 (fingerprint module 118 is
programmed to open selected user profiles when fingerprint is recognized);
claims 5–7 (each fingerprint of plural fingerprints corresponds to distinct
user actions)).
As the Examiner points out (see Ans. 11–12), Appellant discloses in
the Specification that fingerprints can be used as login information to bring a
device to the active state (see Spec. ¶ 61). Specifically, Appellant discloses
that a mobile electronic device can be “brought to an active state by the user
pressing a button, swiping an icon, inputting a password on a login screen,
inputting a fingerprint, using a retina scan or other typical login process”
(Spec. ¶ 61) (emphases added). In view of Appellant’s disclosure that a
fingerprint can be a form of login information (see Spec. ¶ 61), Appellant’s
arguments that (i) “[p]aragraph 35 of Palikuqi does not mention startup,
login or anything similar” (Appeal Br. 7); and (ii) “[t]here is nothing in
Palikuqi that discusses login, startup, or anything similar” (Appeal Br. 7),
are not persuasive.
Similarly, Appellant’s contentions that Chng “does not teach
receiving login information different than a gesture” (Appeal Br. 8), and
“never mentions any type of password, fingerprint, facial scan, or any other
type of login” (Reply Br. 4), are unpersuasive in light of Chng’s teachings of
(i) sensors 270, including biosensors 276 which “can include, but are not
limited to, fingerprint sensors” (Chng ¶ 51); and (ii) use of an email
Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114

8
application, which suggests the use of a user name and password to access
email (see Chng ¶ 35).
Finally, we agree with the Examiner’s (i) determination that
“combining the login information (i.e., fingerprint) as taught by Palikuqi will
add another layer of authentication to the process of activating the phone to
an active mode [as taught by Chng]” (Final Act. 5; Ans. 5); and (ii) resultant
conclusion that
[t]hus, it would have been obvious for one of an ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention was made to incorporate the feature of utilizing
fingerprint to transition to an active mode (i.e., unlocking the
device) and executing certain commands such as opening an
email folder, as taught by Palikuqi, into the teachings of Chng in
order to provide a layer of security by authenticating the user
prior to activing the stand by phone.

Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 5. In view of the Examiner’s proffered reasons for
combining Palikuqi’s fingerprint technique with Chng’s startup process just
discussed, Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has employed
impermissible hindsight because there is no motivation to combine the
references (see Reply Br. 2–3) are unpersuasive.
Appellant’s arguments that Chng teaches away from the claimed
invention (see Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br.4–6), which employs a
fingerprint as user login information different from a gesture, are also
unpersuasive in light of Chng’s use of fingerprints for activating email
applications (which typically have user name and password login
procedures) (see Chng ¶¶ 35, 51). Chng does not discourage the use of login
information or fingerprint recognition or otherwise encourage bypassing
such processes.
Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114

9
In view of the all of the foregoing, Appellant has not shown the
Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness for claim 1, and
claims 3–5, 10–16, and 18–22 grouped therewith, to be in error.
Issue (2): Claim 8
With regard to representative claim 8, we also adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 8–9), and (2) the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 12–13).
The Examiner relies on Holmes as teaching “different gestures with
different intentions” (Final Act. 8; Ans. 8). Indeed, Holmes (¶ 99) teaches
using different gestures for different commands, as set forth in claim 8.
And, Appellant recognizes that Holmes teaches an “event queue” (Reply Br.
6, ¶ 13). In addition, we note that both (i) Chng (see ¶¶ 62 (child-specific
gestures corresponding to a child-specific mode of operation); 63
(information dashboard and operating mode can be customized based on
detected gestures)); and (ii) Palikuqi (see ¶¶ 34 (fingerprint module 118 is
programmed to open selected user profiles when fingerprint is recognized);
claims 5–7 (each fingerprint of plural fingerprints corresponds to distinct
user actions)) teach or suggest using different gestures for different
commands. Therefore, Holmes is not actually necessary for a proper
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of representative claim 8, as Chng and
Palikuqi teach or suggest all that is claimed.3

3 The Board may rely on less than all of the references applied by the
Examiner in an obviousness rationale without designating it as a new ground
Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114

10
The Examiner finds (see Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 8–9, 13), and we agree,
that Chng and Holmes suggest the use of a queue for storing received
gestures in the order received. In view of the foregoing, Appellant’s
contentions that the combination of Chng, Palikuqi, and Holmes fails to
teach or suggest placing received gestures in a gesture queue (see Appeal Br.
9–10; Reply Br. 6–7), are not persuasive.
Notably, Appellant has not responded with evidence or argument to
the Examiner’s expanded reliance on paragraph 154 of Holmes, along with
the articulated rationale suggesting the use of a gesture queue, as teaching
elements of claim 8, namely limitation E, including putting gestures mapped
to different commands in a gesture queue (see Ans. 12–13). As a result,
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8, as
well as claim 9 grouped therewith, over the combination of Chng, Palikuqi,
and Holmes.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not adequately shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3–5, 8–16, and 18–22 over the base combination of Chng and
Palikuqi. As a result, we sustain the rejections of (i) representative claim 1,
as well as claims 3–5, 10–16, and 18–22 grouped therewith, as being
obvious over the base combination of Chng and Palikuqi; and (ii)
representative claim 8, as well as claim 9 grouped therewith, as being
obvious over the base combination taken with Holmes.

of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); see also In re
Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966).
Appeal 2020-001356
Application 15/644,114

11
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5,
10–16,
18–22
103 Chng, Palikuqi 1, 3–5, 10–
16, 18–22

8, 9 103 Chng, Palikuqi,
Homes
8, 9
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 8–16,
18–22

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).

AFFIRMED