Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 8, 2020

2019001021 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2020)

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. 14/605,717 01/26/2015 Juuso Gren 356338.01 5375 39254 7590 07/08/2020 Barta, Jones & Foley, P.C. (Patent Group - Microsoft Corporation) 3308 Preston Road #350-161 Plano, TX 75093 EXAMINER YI, ALEXANDER J. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/08/2020 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@bjfip.com usdocket@microsoft.com uspto@dockettrak.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JUUSO GREN ____________ Appeal 2019-001021 Application 14/605,717 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-001021 Application 14/605,717 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to a locking function used by smart phones to prevent the use of the mobile device by non-authorized users. Spec. ¶ 1. The mobile device may be unlocked, for example, by authenticating the user using iris authentication, facial recognition, or fingerprint authentication. Id. Claims 1, 10, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphases added): 1. A method comprising: displaying a particular screen when a mobile apparatus is in a locked state, the particular screen displaying only a first set of content; detecting a user with the mobile apparatus; authenticating the user with the mobile apparatus automatically on background using a primary biometric authentication method; unlocking the locked state of the mobile apparatus in response to authenticating the user automatically on background, the unlocking placing the mobile apparatus in an unlocked state; and based on unlocking the locked state, maintaining the display of the particular screen displaying only the first set of content. Appeal Br. A-1 (App. A – Claims App.). Appeal 2019-001021 Application 14/605,717 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao2 and Chaudhri.3 Final Act. 2–10. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Chaudhri, and Cho.4 Final Act. 11–12. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 6, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Chaudhri, and Kato.5 Final Act. 12–15. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Chaudhri, Cowburn,6 and Kato. Final Act. 16–19. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Chaudhri, Cowburn, Kato, and Muthukumar.7 Final Act. 19–23. OPINION Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20 The Examiner relies upon Chaudhri for the limitations of “displaying a particular screen when a mobile apparatus is in a locked state, the 2 Zhao et al., US 2012/0235790 A1 (pub. Sept. 20, 2012). 3 Chaudhri et al., US 2012/0293438 A1 (pub. Nov. 22, 2012). 4 Cho, US 2014/0066017 A1 (pub. Mar. 6, 2014). 5 Kato et al., US 2010/0269153 A1 (pub. Oct. 21, 2010). 6 Cowburn et al., US 2009/0283583 A1 (pub. Nov. 19, 2009). 7 Muthukumar, US 2014/0128032 A1 (pub. May 8, 2014). The Examiner mistakenly refers to this reference as “Dhamanagar.” Compare Muthukumar ¶ 46 (“Authentication methods can be selected from finger print, password, touch screen gestures, voice recognition, face & iris recognition etc.”), with Final Act. 19, 21 (quoting “Dhamanagar” paragraph 46). Appeal 2019-001021 Application 14/605,717 4 particular screen displaying only a first set of content” and “based on unlocking the locked state, maintaining the display of the particular screen displaying only the first set of content,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 20. Final Act. 3–4. Specifically, the Examiner cites Chaudhri’s prompt 706 and virtual buttons 708 as “the first set of content” displayed in the locked and unlocked states. Id. (citing Chaudhri Figs. 7C–D, ¶¶ 93–94). Appellant argues that Chaudhri fails to teach or suggest “displaying only a first set of content” in a locked state and, when the locked state is unlocked, still “displaying only the first set of content” as claimed. Appeal Br. 10–14. Specifically, Appellant argues that Chaudhri’s screen displays slidebar 704 in the locked state (Chaudhri Fig. 7C) and does not display slidebar 704 in the unlocked state (Chaudhri Fig. 7D). Appeal Br. 12–13. According to Appellant, “slidebar 704 is content and thus the content shown in Figure 7C is not the same as the content shown in Figure 7D in Chaudhri since the slidebar 704 is not shown in Figure 7D.” Reply Br. C-5–6. Otherwise put, Appellant argues that Chaudhri’s locked and unlocked screens display different sets of content, whereas the claims provide that the locked and unlocked screens display the same set of content. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. C-2, C-5. We disagree with Appellant that Chaudhri’s slidebar 704 is “content.” “Content” is not defined in the Specification, and Appellant’s contention that an unlocking slidebar constitutes “content” is mere attorney argument unsupported by any citation or evidence. See Reply Br. C-5–6. Moreover, while Appellant argues that “nothing may change on the view of the display . . . although the user has been authenticated” (Appeal Br. 11 (citing Appeal 2019-001021 Application 14/605,717 5 Spec. ¶¶ 18, 21; Fig. 2A); Reply Br. C-3–4), the dependent claims suggest that the displayed screen may indeed change when switching from the locked state to the unlocked state, for example to include additional indicators that are not content. See, e.g., claim 6 (depending from claim 1 and reciting “providing an indication on the screen to the user when the user has been authenticated”); see also Spec. Fig. 2D (showing indication 218 on authenticated display view 216), ¶ 15 (describing Figure 2D as follows: “[T]he view 216 includes an indication 218 when the user has been authenticated. This enables the user to see when the biometric authentication performed on background was successful. The indication 218 may be any appropriate graphical indicator on the display.”). We find that Chaudhri’s slidebar 704 is not “content” as argued by Appellant, but rather is more similar to the “indication” described in the Specification. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 15, Fig. 2D; claim 6. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Chaudhri’s disclosure of displaying prompt 706 and virtual buttons 708 in both the locked and unlocked states teaches or suggests “the particular screen displaying only a first set of content” in the locked state and “maintaining the display of the particular screen displaying only the first set of content” in the unlocked state, as claimed. See Final Act. 3–4; Chaudhri Figs. 7C–D. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 10, and 20, and dependent claims 2–7, 9, 11–17, and 19 not separately argued by Appellant. Claims 8 and 18 The Examiner relies upon Cowburn for “using a secondary authentication method after the user has been authenticated using the Appeal 2019-001021 Application 14/605,717 6 primary biometric authentication method,” as recited in claims 8 and 18. Final Act. 16 (citing Cowburn ¶ 13). Appellant argues that “Cowburn describes authenticating an article using two separate authentication signatures/identifiers,” whereas claims 8 and 18 recite using a secondary authentication method to authenticate a user, not an article. Appeal Br. 16. We find this argument unpersuasive because Appellant attacks the Cowburn reference individually, whereas the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 18 is based on the combination of Zhao, Chaudhri, Cowburn, and Kato. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We agree with the Examiner that, because Zhao teaches using a primary biometric authentication method to authenticate a user and Cowburn teaches using a secondary authentication method, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to “authenticat[e] the user with the mobile apparatus using a secondary authentication method after the user has been authenticated using the primary biometric authentication method,” as claimed. See Ans. 10–11 (citing Zhao ¶ 32; Cowburn ¶ 13). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 8 and 18. Appeal 2019-001021 Application 14/605,717 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20 103 Zhao, Chaudhri 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20 2, 11 103 Zhao, Chaudhri, Cho 2, 11 4, 6, 13, 16 103 Zhao, Chaudhri, Kato 4, 6, 13, 16 8, 18 103 Zhao, Chaudhri, Cowburn, Kato 8, 18 9, 19 103 Zhao, Chaudhri, Cowburn, Kato, Muthukumar 9, 19 Overall Outcome 1–20