Reliance Jio Infocomm USA, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 14, 2021

2020006748 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 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.
14/788,510 06/30/2015 Nathan A. Smith 141313.00009 8495
33649 7590 05/14/2021
Mr. Christopher John Rourk
Jackson Walker LLP
2323 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201
EXAMINER
DAHIR, BILLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2021 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 NATHAN A. SMITH, JAYABHARATH R. GOLUGURI,
RYAN WICK, and TOM BOLLWITT
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, 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 1–19 and 21. See Non-Final Act. 1.
Claim 20 has been canceled. Id. at 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A telephonic hearing was held on April 20, 2021.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as RELIANCE JIO
INFOCOMM USA, INC. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to providing a user-controlled overlay for a
user interface device that allows a user to quickly access applications that
are operating on the device. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for controlling a device, comprising:
a user-controlled overlay configured to receive one or
more user-entered controls and to generate a display on a screen
of the device that includes a tab, a panel and a plurality of icons
disposed within the panel;2
a touch screen controller configured to receive user-
entered screen interface data from the screen and to generate
coordinate data from the user-entered screen interface data;
a processor coupled to the user-controlled overlay and the
touch screen controller, the processor configured to modify the
user-controlled overlay to generate a user-interface window for
an application associated with a selected icon in response to the
coordinate data; and
wherein the tab is configured to be manipulated by a user
to cause the panel to appear to extend onto the screen and the
user-controlled overlay includes a fly-out window associated
with one or more of the icons, wherein the content of the fly-out
window is generated from an alert received at a wireless interface
of the device for an application associated with one of the icons
and includes an indication of an action associated with the
application.
Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.).

2 Appellant asserts the Examiner overlooked the recited term panel during
Examination, but we find no basis for that assertion. See Reply Br. 3.
Appellant refers to page 3 of the Answer, where the Examiner quotes
Appellant’s argument, which omits the term panel. Ans. 3; Appeal Br. 10,
15, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26.
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Drucker US 2008/0209327 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
Marcellino US 2009/0305732 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
Haapsaari US 2010/0205563 A1 Aug. 12, 2010
Warner US 2010/0306702 A1 Dec. 2, 2010
Chaudhri US 2011/0252375 A1 Oct. 13, 2011
Louch US 2012/0185789 A1 July 19, 2012
Raleigh US 2013/0132854 A1 May 23, 2013
Wang US 2014/0181726 A1 June 26, 2014
Lai US 2014/0344754 A1 Nov. 20, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Lai, Wang, and Raleigh. Non-Final Act. 4.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai,
Wang, Raleigh, and Warner. Non-Final Act. 8.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai,
Wang, Raleigh, and Louch. Non-Final Act. 9.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai,
Wang, Raleigh, and Chaudhri. Non-Final Act. 10.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai,
Wang, Raleigh, and Drucker. Non-Final Act. 11.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai,
Wang, Raleigh, and Haapsaari. Non-Final Act. 12.
Claims 8, 9, 11–14, 16, and 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Lai and Raleigh. Non-Final Act. 13.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai,
Raleigh, and Marcellino. Non-Final Act. 17.
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
4
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai,
Raleigh, and Chaudhri. Non-Final Act. 18.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai,
Raleigh, and Haapsaari. Non-Final Act. 19.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lai,
Raleigh, Haapsaari, and Marcellino. Non-Final Act. 20.
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 3 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh
2 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Warner
4 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Louch
5 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Chaudhri
6 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Drucker
7 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh, Haapsaari
8, 9, 11–14,
16, 18, 19
103 Lai, Raleigh
10 103 Lai, Raleigh, Marcellino
15 103 Lai, Raleigh, Chaudhri
17 103 Lai, Raleigh, Haapsaari
21 103 Lai, Raleigh, Haapsaari, Marcellino
OPINION
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1 and 3
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Lai teaches “a user-
controlled overlay configured to receive one or more user-entered controls
and to generate a display on a screen of the device that includes a tab and a
plurality of icons disposed within a panel that is associated with the tab,” as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10, 15; Ans. 2. Appellant also disputes the
Examiner’s finding that Lai teaches “a tab that is configured to be
manipulated by a user to cause a panel associated with the tab to appear to
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
5
extend onto the screen,” as recited in claim 1. Id.3 Appellant argues that
“[e]very embodiment of Lai shows that icon 510 is static and is not
generated in response to a user control input, is continually displayed, the
icons relate to documents, and not to other controls.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant further argues that Lai does not use the term “panel” and “there is
no disclosure of a panel in Lai.” Id.
We begin our analysis with a brief review of Lai. Lai generally relates
to “directed to techniques for providing enhanced user interfaces.” Lai, ¶ 5.
In particular, Lai describes that, in some arrangements,
a user interface may be provided ( e.g., by a computing device)
that includes a partially-revealed ring comprising at least one
row of icons, where a first portion of the ring is visible and a
second portion of the ring, different from the first portion, is
hidden. The icons included in the ring may be user-selectable to
launch applications, open documents, and perform other
actions. In addition, the ring may be rotated to selectively reveal
other icons that may be included in the hidden portion of the
ring. Rotating the ring may also result in some of the visible
icons being hidden as they are moved out of the visible area of
the user interface. In some embodiments, the ring may be
displayed at an edge of a user interface, and the ring may be
exposed or hidden in response to user input pulling the ring out
of the edge of the user interface or pushing the ring back into
the edge of the user interface, respectively.

Lai, ¶ 5. Figures 5 and 6 of Lai, relied on by the Examiner, illustrate such
user interfaces. See also Lai, ¶¶ 63–65.

3 Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Lai teaches that the user is
able to drag the tab away from the edge to reveal a panel (Appeal Br. 10,
15), but such limitation is not recited in claims 1 or 3.
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
6

Figure 1: Lai Figure 5

Figure 2: Lai Figure 6

Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
7
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Lai, Wang, and
Raleigh to teach Appellant’s claimed invention. See Non-Final Act. 4–7. The
Examiner finds, in relevant part, Lai teaches a system for controlling a
device, comprising: a user-controlled overlay configured to receive one or
more user-entered controls (Lai, ¶ 5 “an enhanced user interface that is
selectable”) and to generate a display on a screen of a device (Lai, ¶ 22 “a
touch screen is configured to display graphical content rendered by a
computing device”) that includes a tab (Lai, Fig. 5, ¶ 63 “control element
510”), a panel (Lai, Fig. 6, ¶ 65 “ring 605”), and a plurality of icons
disposed within the panel (Lai, Fig 6, ¶ 65 “the icons of ring 605 may be
displayed within concentric border circles”). Non-Final Act. 4 (emphasis
added); see also Ans. 3–4. The Examiner further finds Lai teaches wherein
the tab is configured to be manipulated by a user to cause the panel to
appear to extend onto the screen (Lai, ¶¶ 37, 43: the user is able to drag the
control element away from the edge to reveal the ring). Non-Final Act. 4;
Ans. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner broadly interprets4 the recited tab to
be “a flap or extension that is projected from something.” Ans. 4.
Appellant first argues that “[e]very embodiment of Lai shows that
icon 510 is static and is not generated in response to a user control input.”
Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner relied on control element 510 in Figure 5 of
Lai as the recited tab. Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. Claim 1 requires a user-
controlled overlay configured to receive one or more user-entered controls
and to generate a display on a screen of a device that includes a tab

4 We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
8
(emphasis added), but does not require on its face that the tab is “generated
in response to a user control input,” as Appellant alleges. Appeal Br. 31.
Appellant next argues that icon 510 in Lai “is continually displayed.”
Id. at 10. Appellant has not sufficiently explained why claim 1 requires that
the recited tab not be continually displayed. Claim 1 requires only that the
tab is configured to be manipulated by a user to cause the panel to appear to
extend onto the screen, which encompasses a tab that is continually
displayed.
Appellant next argues that “the icons relate to documents, and not to
other controls.” Id. Lai teaches, however, “the icons included in ring 605
may correspond to various documents and/or other files, and the name of
each document or file may be displayed above the corresponding icon in the
ring 605.” Lai, ¶ 65 (emphasis added).
Appellant further argues that Lai does not use the term “panel” and
“there is no disclosure of a panel in Lai.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner,
however, does not contend, nor is the Examiner required to demonstrate, that
the identical text of rejected claim 1 appears in the cited references. In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Rather, the Examiner finds ring
605 in Lai Figure 6 teaches a panel, and paragraphs 37 and 43 of Lai teach
that the user is able to drag the control element 510 (tab) away from the edge
to reveal ring 605 (panel). Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 3–4. Appellant does not
address the Examiner’s findings based on paragraphs 37 and 43 of Lai.
Instead, Appellant argues in the Reply Brief, “the Office still does not
identify anything that is asserted to be a panel in Lai.” Reply Br. 2.
Appellant also argues in a conclusory manner that “[n]obody of skill in the
art, upon reading the claims in view of the specification, would understand
that a panel could be some random group of icons that roughly form a ring
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
9
or some other structure in a figure.” Id. at 4. Appellants do not provide any
basis for this argument. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
With regard to the Examiner’s interpretation of tab, as recited in claim
1, Appellant argues the Examiner relied “on the extrinsic evidence of the
cited prior art for claim construction purposes.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant has
not persuaded us that the Examiner relied on the prior art in interpreting the
claim term, however. Appellant merely points out that the sentence
following the Examiner’s interpretation refers to the prior art. Id. (citing
Ans. 3). Nor has Appellant persuaded us that the Examiner’s interpretation
of tab is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
Lai teaches the limitations a user-controlled overlay configured to receive
one or more user-entered controls and to generate a display on a screen of
the device that includes a tab, a panel and a plurality of icons disposed
within the panel and wherein the tab is configured to be manipulated by a
user to cause the panel to appear to extend onto the screen, as recited in
claim 1.
Appellant next challenges the Examiner’s finding that Wang teaches
the limitation a processor coupled to the user-controlled overlay and the
touch screen controller, the processor configured to modify the user-
controlled overlay to generate a user-interface window for an application
associated with a selected icon in response to the coordinate data, as recited
in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10, 15 (emphasis added). Appellant argues that
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
10
“Wang does not disclose a user-controlled overlay,” and “the term ‘overlay’
is not used anywhere in Wang.” Id. at 10.
As we explained above, identity of terminology is not required. See
Bond, 910 F.2d at 832. Moreover, the Examiner relied on Lai, not Wang, as
teaching the recited user-controlled overlay. See Final Act. 4 (citing Lai,
¶ 5). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relied on the
combination of Lai, Wang, and Raleigh in rejecting claim 1. Appellant has
not persuasively addressed what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Nor has Appellant
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s finding that Figure 3 and paragraph 56
of Wang teach an “overlay.” See Ans. 5.
Appellant further argues that Wang teaches away from an overlay
because “Wang uses a quick-launch window that does not float over
anything (i.e., does not overlay).” Id. at 10–11 (citing Wang ¶ 4).
Appellant’s “teaching away” argument fails because Appellant has not
identified where Wang actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages a user-controlled overlay, as recited in claim 1. See In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference
does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for
an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed”) (citing Fulton).
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
11
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
Wang teaches the limitation a processor coupled to the user-controlled
overlay and the touch screen controller, the processor configured to modify
the user-controlled overlay to generate a user-interface window for an
application associated with a selected icon in response to the coordinate
data, as recited in claim 1.
Appellant next challenges the Examiner’s finding that Raleigh teaches
the user-controlled overlay includes a fly-out window associated with one or
more icons, wherein the content of the fly-out window is generated from an
alert received at a wireless interface of the device for an application
associated with one of the icons and includes an indication of an action
associated with the application, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12, 15–16.
Appellant argues that “[e]ven if the message of Raleigh is considered to be
an alert, it is not associated with a fly-out window, and Raleigh does not
even use the term “fly-out.” Id. at 12. Appellant further argues that Raleigh
describes Figures 16J and 16K of Raleigh “as disclosing a ‘service launch
object notification messages,’ not a fly-out window of a user-controller
overlay that includes an indication of an action associated with the
application.” Id.
As we explained above, the identical text of rejected claim 1 is not
required to appear in the cited references. See Bond, 910 F.2d at 832.
Moreover, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the
actual claim language. In claim 1, the user-controlled overlay includes a fly-
out window . . . wherein the content of the fly-out window . . . includes an
indication of an action associated with the application.” Appeal Br. 31
(Claim App’x). The Examiner concluded that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of fly-out window associated with one or more icons is a pop-
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
12
up or window that is superimposed on or extends from one or more icons.
Ans. 6. Appellant has not addressed, and therefore has not persuaded us, that
the Examiner’s interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent
with the Specification.
Moreover, the Examiner relied on Lai, not Raleigh, as teaching the
recited user-controlled overlay. See Final Act. 4 (citing Lai, ¶ 5); In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
at 425) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”).
Appellant has not persuasively addressed what the combined teachings of
Lai, Wang, and Raleigh would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
the combination of Lai, Wang, and Raleigh teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of claim 1.
Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s combination of the
teachings of Lai and Wang. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues that, because
Wang teaches away from a user-controlled overlay, the combination is
improper. Id.
Because, as discussed above, we do not find Appellant’s “teaching
away” argument persuasive, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
combining the teachings of Lai and Wang. Moreover, the Examiner provides
“articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); Non-Final
Act. 6, 7; Ans. 9–11.
Appellant further challenges the Examiner’s combination of the
teachings of Lai and Wang with those of Raleigh. Appeal Br. 16–17.
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
13
Appellant argues the combination is improper because “the combination of
Lai and Wang fails to provide a user-controlled overlay as well as many
other limitations and that the Office has failed to show that Raleigh cures
those deficiencies.” Id. at 16.
Because, as discussed above, we do not find Appellant’s arguments
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of the
prior art, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in combining the teachings
of Lai and Wang with those of Raleigh. The Examiner provides articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. Non-Final Act. 6, 7; Ans. 9–11.
Appellant argues dependent claim 3 separately. Appeal Br. 17. Claim
3 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the panel and the
plurality of icons are originally hidden and can be relocated by a user after
the user activates the tab. Id. at 31. Appellant argues that “Lai does not
disclose that the user is able to drag the tab away from the edge to reveal a
panel.” Id. at 17.
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the language
of claim 3, which requires only that the panel and plurality of icons are
originally hidden and can be relocated by a user after the user activates the
tab. Id. at 31. There is no recitation in claim 3 that the user is able to drag the
tab away from the edge to reveal a panel. Id. The Examiner finds Figure 5 of
Lai illustrates that the ring (panel) and plurality of icons are hidden from
view, and can be relocated by a user after the user activates the tab by
dragging a handle or portion (the control element or tab) to the desired
location. Non-Final Act. 7–8 (citing Lai ¶¶ 35, 37, 43). Appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the portions of Lai cited by the Examiner.
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
14
Appellant further argues that the Examiner fails to provide articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning for combining the teachings of
Lai, Wang, and Raleigh. Appeal Br. 16.
As the Examiner explains in the Answer, the Examiner cites the
primary reference, Lai, to teach the additional claim limitation recited in
claim 3, so no separate rationale is needed to combine the teachings of Lai,
Wang, and Raleigh for claim 3, which depends from claim 1. See Ans. 11.
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s explanation.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites wherein the
panel and the plurality of icons are not displayed on the screen in a first
state and are displayed on the screen in a second state, and the fly-out
window comprises an additional plurality of icons, each for an instantiated
application. Appeal Br. 31. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that
Warner teaches a fly-out window associated with one or more icons of a tab
of a user-controlled overlay. Appellant further argues that the terms “fly,”
“fly-out,” and “overlay” are not used in Warner. Appeal Br. 12; see also id.
at 17.
We reiterate that identity of terminology between the claims and the
prior art is not required. See Bond, 910 F.2d at 832. The Examiner finds
Appellant’s Specification does not define the term “fly-out window,” and
concludes the broadest reasonable interpretation is “a pop-up or window.”
Non-Final Act. 12. The Examiner finds Warner teaches a drop-down menu
that contains a plurality of icons that are each associated with an instantiated
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
15
application. Id. (citing Warner ¶ 3). Appellant has not persuasively rebutted
the Examiner’s findings with regard to Warner’s teachings in paragraph 3.
Moreover, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner finds Warner teaches a fly-
out window (¶ 3: drop-down menu) that comprises an additional plurality of
icons, each for an instantiated application (¶ 3: the drop-down menu
contains a plurality of items for the running application), as claim 2 requires.
Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner relied on the combined teachings of Lai,
Wang, and Raleigh for “a user-controlled overlay configured to receive one
or more user-entered controls and to generate a display on a screen of the
device that includes a tab and a plurality of icons disposed within a panel
that is associated with the tab,” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 2
depends. Id. at 4–7. Thus, the Examiner did not rely on Warner for the
limitations Appellant argues.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the panel,
the plurality of icons and the tab can be relocated by a user by relocating
the tab from a first perimeter edge of the screen to a second perimeter edge
of the screen and each of the plurality of icons can be relocated within the
panel after selection of the tab. Appeal Br. 31–32.
The Examiner finds Louch teaches each of the plurality of icons can
be relocated within the panel. Non-Final Act. 9 (citing Louch, ¶ 23).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because “[t]he terms ‘fly,’ ‘fly-
out,’ ‘overlay’ and ‘panel’ are not even used in Louch, and the dock of
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
16
Louch is not a tab of a user-controlled overlay.” Appeal Br. 13, 18.
Again, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred because identity of
terminology is not required (see Bond, 910 F.2d at 832), Appellant does not
rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding paragraph 23 of Louch cited by the
Examiner, and Appellant does not address the combined teachings of Lai,
Wang, Raleigh, and Louch, relied on by the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 9). In
particular, the Examiner relies on Lai, not Louch, as teaching the tab, as
recited in claim 4. Non-Final Act. 4, 9. In addition, the Examiner finds Lai,
not Louch, teaches wherein the panel, the plurality of icons and the tab can
be relocated by a user by relocating the tab from a first perimeter edge of
the screen to a second perimeter edge of the screen. Id. at 9 (citing Lai,
¶¶ 35, 37, 43, 51) (emphasis added).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the user-
controlled overlay further comprises a folder display containing a plurality
of icons that is generated when a folder icon in the panel is selected by a
user after the user-controlled overlay is activated by a user selecting the tab.
Appeal Br. 32 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Chaudhri teaches wherein the user-controlled
overlay further comprises a folder display containing a plurality of icons
that is generated when a folder icon in the panel is selected by a user. Non-
Final Act. 10 (citing Chaudhri, ¶ 233, Figs. 5S, 5T) (emphasis added). In
particular, the Examiner finds Chaudhri teaches that a user makes a selection
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
17
on folder icon 5004-7 in Figure 5S, which then presents folder display 5078
that contains two generated icons, as shown in Figure 5T. Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because “[t]here is no user-
controlled overlay disclosed in Chaudhri, and the terms ‘panel,’ ‘tab’ and
‘user-controlled overlay’ is not used in Chaudhri.” Appeal Br. 13, 19.
Again, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred because identity of
terminology is not required (see Bond, 910 F.2d at 832), Appellant does not
persuasively rebut the portions of Chaudhri cited by the Examiner
(Chaudhri, ¶ 233, Figs. 5S, 5T), and Appellant does not address the
combined teachings of Lai, Wang, Raleigh, and Chaudhri, relied on by the
Examiner (Non-Final Act. 10). In particular, the Examiner relies on Lai, not
Chaudhri, as teaching the user-controlled overlay, as recited in claim 5.
Non-Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner also finds Lai, not
Chaudhri, teaches displaying the panel and the associated plurality of icons
after the user has manipulated the tab. Id. at 10 (citing Lai, ¶¶ 35, 37, 43).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the
plurality of icons comprises a plurality of icons that are selected by a
network operator and a plurality of icons that are selected by a user and
where the placement of the plurality of icons that are selected by the network
operator cannot be modified by the user. Appeal Br. 32.
The Examiner finds Raleigh teaches wherein the plurality of icons
comprises a plurality of icons that are selected by a network operator and a
plurality of icons that are selected by a user and a plurality of icons that are
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
18
selected by a user, as recited in claim 6. Non-Final Act. 11 (citing ¶¶ 412,
1173, 1179, 1183, Figs. 16H, 16I). The Examiner finds Drucker teaches
where the placement of the plurality of icons that are selected by the network
operator cannot be modified by the user, as recited in claim 6. Non-Final
Act. 11 (citing Drucker, ¶¶ 21, 63).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because “Drucker does not
disclose that the placement of a plurality of icons in a panel of a user-
controlled overlay that are selected by a network operator cannot be
modified by the user, and instead discloses that objects that are not icons in a
panel of a user-controlled overlay that are placed by a third party cannot be
moved by a user.” Appeal Br. 14, 20.
Appellant’s argument is conclusory, merely reciting the claim
limitation, the teachings of Drucker, and stating that the two are not the
same. Id. Rule 41.37 “require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the
plurality of icons is automatically scrolled within the panel to display an
icon associated with the fly-out window if the icon is not being displayed
when the alert is received. Appeal Br. 32. The Examiner finds Haapsaari
teaches the limitation recited in claim 7. Non-Final Act. 12 (citing Haapsaari
¶ 63).
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
19
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because
Haapsaari does not disclose a plurality of icons that is
automatically scrolled within the panel to display an icon
associated with the fly-out window if the icon is not being
displayed when the alert is received. Instead, it discloses that a
ribbon that is not a fly-out window may be configured to
automatically scroll to display an item having a notification.
Appeal Br. 14, 21.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it is conclusory,
merely reciting the claim limitation, the teachings of Haapsaari, and stating
that the two are not the same. Id.; see Lovin, 652 F.3d at1357.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 8
Independent claim 8 recites, in pertinent part, launching a boot loader
of a device. Appeal Br. 32. The Examiner rejects claim 8 over the teachings
of Lai and Raleigh, finding in part that Raleigh teaches launching a boot
loader of a device. Non-Final Act. 13 (citing Raleigh, ¶ 1785).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Raleigh does not teach a
boot loader, and “the terms ‘boot’ and ‘loader’ are not even used on
Raleigh.” Appeal Br. 22. Appellant also makes arguments similar to those
made in the context of independent claim 1 for the remainder of the
limitations recited in claim 8. Id.; see also Appeal Br. 15–17.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred for the reasons set forth
above for claims 1 and 3. We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s “boot
loader” argument because identity of terminology is not required (see Bond,
910 F.2d at 832), Appellant’s argument is conclusory (Lovin, 652 F.3d
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
20
at1357), Appellant does not persuasively rebut the portion of Raleigh cited
by the Examiner (Raleigh, ¶ 1785), and Appellant does not address what the
combined teachings of Lai and Raleigh, relied on by the Examiner, would
have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill (Non-Final Act. 13).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 9, 11–14, 16, 18, and 19
In challenging the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9, 11–14,
16, 18, and 19, Appellant presents arguments similar to those made for
claims 1 and 3. See Appeal Br. 25.
For the reasons set forth above in the section addressing claims 1 and
3, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 11–14,
16, 18, and 19, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and further recites
receiving an alert;
determining an icon associated with the alert from
the first plurality of network icons and the icons for the
plurality of applications; and
generating a fly-out display for the determined
icon in the panel.
Appeal Br. 33.
The Examiner finds the combination of Lai and Raleigh teaches the
method of claim 8, Raleigh further teaches receiving an alert (Raleigh ¶
1040) and generating a fly-out display for the determined icon in the panel.
Non-Final Act. 17–18. The Examiner finds Marcellino teaches using a
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
21
notification manager for determining an icon associated with the alert from
the icons for a plurality of applications. Id. at 18 (citing Marcellino ¶¶ 88–
89).
Appellant makes arguments similar to those made for claims 1 and 3.
Appeal Br. 26. In addition, Appellant argues Marcellino does not consider
whether the determined icon is a network icon or an icon for a plurality of
applications. Id. at 14, 26.
Appellant does not explain why claim 10 requires giving “regard to
whether it is a network icon or an icon for a plurality of applications.” See
id. at 26. The plain language of claim 10 recites no such requirement.
Moreover, as the Examiner points out,
the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Ans. 26 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10, and we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 9 and further recites generating a folder
display containing a second plurality of icons when a folder icon in the
panel is selected by a user. Appeal Br. 33.
Appellant presents arguments directed to the teachings of Chaudhri
that are similar to the arguments presented for claim 5.
Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
22
For the reasons discussed above in the context of claim 5, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15, and we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 8 and further recites scrolling the first
plurality of network icons within the panel and generating an alert for one
of the icons based on a data message received at a wireless interface of the
device, the data message addressed to an application associated with the
one of the icons.. Appeal Br. 34.
Appellant presents arguments directed to the teachings of Haapsaari
that are similar to the arguments presented for claim 7. Id. at 28. Appellant
also restates that Raleigh does not teach a boot loader, as recited in claim 8.
Id.
For the reasons discussed above in the context of claims 7 and 8, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17, and we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 21
The Examiner rejects independent claim 21 over the combined
teachings of Lai, Raleigh, Haapsaari, and Marcellino. Non-Final Act 20.
Appellant presents arguments previously presented in claims 7 (for
Haapsaari) and 10 (for Marcellino). Appeal Br. 29–30. Appellant also argues
Raleigh does not teach a “boot loader,” as was argued for claim 8. Id. at 30.
For the reasons discussed above in the context of at least claims 7, 8,
and 10, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21, and
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2020-006748
Application 14/788,510
23
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–19 and 21 is AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3 103 Lai, Wang, Raleigh 1, 3
2 103 Lai, Wang,
Raleigh, Warner
2
4 103 Lai, Wang,
Raleigh, Louch
4
5 103 Lai, Wang,
Raleigh, Chaudhri
5
6 103 Lai, Wang,
Raleigh, Drucker
6
7 103 Lai, Wang,
Raleigh, Haapsaari
7
8, 9, 11–14,
16, 18, 19
103 Lai, Raleigh 8, 9, 11–14,
16, 18, 19

10 103 Lai, Raleigh,
Marcellino
10
15 103 Lai, Raleigh,
Chaudhri
15
17 103 Lai, Raleigh,
Haapsaari
17
21 103 Lai, Raleigh,
Haapsaari,
Marcellino
21
Overall
Outcome
1–19, 21
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).
AFFIRMED