Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 8, 2020

14605717 - (D) (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