Mihal Lazaridis et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2021

2019006458 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 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.
13/215,481 08/23/2011 Mihal Lazaridis 31234-0160001 2289
94149 7590 04/22/2021
Fish & Richardson P.C. (Blackberry)
P.O.Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440
EXAMINER
KETEMA, BENYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2021 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT JAMES LOWLES, DONALD JAMES LINDSAY,
JOHN EDWARD DOLSON, and DANNY THOMAS DODGE

Appeal 2019-006458
Application 13/215,481
Technology Center 2600

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 10, 16–18, 21–24, and 26–28.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“BLACKBERRY LIMITED.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006458
Application 13/215,481

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
An embodiment of Appellant’s invention provides a touch-sensitive
display, touch-sensitive bezel adjacent the display, and a wake-up gesture
starting on the bezel. Spec. ¶ 17. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of argued subject matter.
1. A method for a portable electronic device, comprising:
detecting a trigger condition;
responsive to the detecting, switching the portable electronic
device to a first power mode wherein a display exposed by a
front of the portable electronic device is inactive;
while in the first power mode and while the display remains
inactive:
prior to detection of any touch, scanning for a touch;
wherein the scanning is carried out only in a designated
area of a touch-sensitive overlay, the touch-sensitive
overlay overlaying:
a display area of the display in which content is
displayed; and
a non-display area that surrounds the display
area of the display and in which content is not
displayed;
wherein the touch-sensitive overlay includes:
an overlay display area overlaying the display area
of the display;
a boundary adjacent to and surrounding the
overlay display area;
an overlay non-display area overlaying a portion of
the non-display area of the display;
a buffer region overlaying another portion of the
non-display area of the display and positioned
Appeal 2019-006458
Application 13/215,481

3
between the boundary and the overlay
non-display area;
wherein the designated area is an area of the overlay
non-display area;
detecting a touch;
determining touch attributes of the touch; and
determining that the touch is a designated wake-up
gesture based on the touch attributes, the touch
attributes including:
a start location within the designated area;
travel through the buffer region; and
an end location within the overlay display area;
responsive to the determining that the touch is the designated
wake-up gesture, switching the portable electronic device from
the first power mode to a second power mode.
Appeal Br. 33–34 (emphasis added).
Rejections
Claims 1, 6, 17, 18, 21–24, and 26–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bandyopadhyay (US 2012/0071149 A1;
Mar. 22, 2012), Cobian (US 2004/0212583 A1; Oct. 28, 2004), Vaisanen
(US 2010/0105443 A1; Apr. 29, 2010), and Lee (US 2009/0167725 A1;
July 2, 2009). Final Act. 6–27.
Claims 2–4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bandyopadhyay, Cobian, Vaisanen, Lee, and Lyon (US
7,728,823 B2; June 1, 2010). Final Act. 27–28.
Claim 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bandyopadhyay, Cobian, Vaisanen, Lee, and Harrat (US
2010/0313050 A1; Dec. 9, 2010). Final Act. 28–29.
Appeal 2019-006458
Application 13/215,481

4
Claim 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bandyopadhyay, Cobian, Vaisanen, Lee, and Banerjee
(US 2005/0198219 A1; Sept. 8, 2005). Final Act. 29–30.
OPINION
In contesting the rejections, Appellant does not address the
claims individually, but rather submits substantively identical arguments for
the independent claims and submits the dependent claims stand on the
patentability of their base independent claims. See Appeal Br. 15–31.
We select claim 1 as representative. For the following reasons, we are
unpersuaded of error in the rejections and thus sustain them.
All claims are rejected as obvious over Bandyopadhyay, Cobian,
Vaisanen, and Lee. Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown the
references teach or suggest the following claim feature:
The method . . . includes switching, responsive to the
determining that a touch is a designated wake-up gesture, the
portable electronic device from the first power mode to a
second power mode.
. . . [The] touch attributes includ[e] a touch determined
to[:] have a start location within the designated area; travel
through the buffer region; and [have] an end location within the
overlay display area[.] . . . [T]he touch-sensitive overlay
includes: an overlay display area overlaying the display area of
the display; and an overlay non-display area overlaying a
portion of the non-display area of the display.
Appeal Br. 15. We have emphasized, in the above-reproduced claim 1, the
respective claim limitations of these argued features. Before addressing
Appellant’s specific contentions, we present the pertinent applied teachings
of Bandyopadhyay, Cobian, Vaisanen, and Lee.
Appeal 2019-006458
Application 13/215,481

5
Bandyopadhyay’s Figure 5 embodiment teaches a mobile device that,
when in a sleep mode, scans only a non-display designated area for touches
and wakes up in response to detecting a trigger-condition touch in the
designated area. Final Act. 7; accord Bandyopadhyay ¶¶ 5–6, 31. Cobian’s
Figure 1 embodiment teaches a buffer region (108) between a display (104)
and a bezel (106) surrounding the display. Final Act. 9; accord Cobian ¶ 22.
Vaisanen’s Figure 6 embodiment teaches a sliding touch-gesture that is
detected from its start (606) outside of the display to its finish (602) within
the display. Final Act. 10; accord Vaisanen ¶ 54. Lee’s Figure 5
embodiment teaches touch-sensors overlaying a display portion and
non-display edge portion (surrounding the display portion). Final Act. 11;
Ans. 7; accord Lee ¶¶ 33, 55.
In view of the above teachings, the Examiner concludes it would have
been obvious to utilize the edge portion of Bandyopadhyay’s display device
(see Figure 1) as a touch-sensitive bezel for receiving non-display
touch-gestures,2 e.g., for triggering Bandyopadhyay’s wake-up mode via a
different non-display touch-gesture. Final Act. 11–12. The Examiner
proposes to form the bezel by adding, in view of Cobian, a seal (buffer
region) between the display and edge portion; and adding, in view of Lee,
touch sensors over the edge portion. Id. The Examiner proposes to add
sliding non-display touch-gesture whereby, in view of Vaisanen, the touch
starts on the edge portion and ends within the display. Id.

2 By “non-display touch-gestures,” we mean at least part of the gesture
touches a portion of the device that is not overlaying the display’s array of
pixels.
Appeal 2019-006458
Application 13/215,481

6
Appellant contends “Vaisanen does not teach a mobile device with a
touch bezel and a touch display[.] Vaisanen only teaches a touch display.”
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded because Appellant
fails to address the Examiner’s reliance on Bandyopadhyay in view of
Cobian, Vaisanen, and Lee. As stated above, the Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to utilize the edge portion of Bandyopadhyay’s
display device as a touch-sensitive bezel for receiving non-display touch
gestures. See supra 5. Appellant does not meaningfully rebut the
Examiner’s determination. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential) (explaining an appellant’s burden of rebuttal).
For example, Appellant does not show the Examiner’s proposed
modification is unreasonable, but rather attacks Vaisanen individually
whereas the argued claim feature (touch bezel) is read on Bandyopadhyay as
modified in view of Cobian (adding a buffer region between the display and
edge portion to form bezel) and Lee (adding touch sensors over the edge
portion to make the bezel touch-sensitive). See supra 5; see also In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”).
Appellant also contends “Lee teaches a display having no bezel.”
Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis omitted). This contention fails for each of two
reasons. First, Appellant does not address the Examiner’s determination that
Bandyopadhyay’s and Lee’s edge portions are bezels (Final Act. 7; Ans. 7)
because an “‘[e]dge portion’ is a term commonly used in the art to define the
bezel/border/peripheral portion” (Ans. 7). Second, Appellant does not
address the Examiner’s determination that Cobian teaches configuration of a
Appeal 2019-006458
Application 13/215,481

7
bezel (106) around a display. Final Act. 9; see also supra 5 (explaining the
Examiner’s proposed combination of prior art teachings).
Appellant also contends “there is no suggestion in Lee that the
non-linear region [(i.e., edge portion)] is also a non-display area.”
Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded of Examiner error
because Appellant does not address the Examiner’s supported determination
that: Lee’s paragraph 33 labels the device’s middle region 702 as a “linear”
region and outer region 701 as a “non-linear” region; and Lee’s
paragraph 55 states the display panel is located in the linear region 702.
Ans. 7.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 10, 16–18,
21–24, and 26–28.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 17, 18,
21–24, 26–28 103(a)
Bandyopadhyay,
Cobian, Vaisanen,
Lee
1, 6, 17, 18,
21–24, 26–28
2–4 103(a)
Bandyopadhyay,
Cobian, Vaisanen,
Lee, Lyon
2–4
10 103(a)
Bandyopadhyay,
Cobian, Vaisanen,
Lee, Harrat
10
16 103(a)
Bandyopadhyay,
Cobian, Vaisanen,
Lee, Banerjee
16
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 10,
16–18, 21–
24, 26–28

Appeal 2019-006458
Application 13/215,481

8

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).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018).

AFFIRMED