Huawei Device Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2022

2021001553 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2022)

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. 15/125,535 09/12/2016 Chao Fang 4437-38900 8060 97698 7590 02/25/2022 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. 4965 Preston Park Blvd, Suite 195E Plano, TX 75093 EXAMINER POSIGIAN, DAVID S. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2022 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): aipatent@huawei.com dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHAO FANG, ZHANG GAO, and YUANQIANG NI ____________ Appeal 2021-001553 Application 15/125,535 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 45-49, 51-58, and 60-67. Claims 1-44, 50, and 59 are canceled. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2022). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Huawei Device Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001553 Application 15/125,535 2 The present invention relates generally to a screen locking method. See Spec. Abstr. Claim 45, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 45. A method, applied to a terminal, comprising: displaying a first lock screen interface on a screen of the terminal with the terminal being in a lock screen state, wherein the first lock screen interface shows a first picture as a lock screen background; displaying a first lock screen configuration interface on the screen of the terminal with the terminal remaining in the lock screen state in response to receiving a first user input on the first lock screen interface, wherein text introduction of the first picture is displayed on the first lock screen configuration interface, wherein the first lock screen configuration interface is provided with a first function option for commenting on the lock screen background, wherein the first function option is represented by a heart-shaped icon, and wherein at least a portion of the first picture is visible when the first lock screen configuration interface is displayed; and identifying the first picture as a favorite in response to receiving a second user input on the heart-shaped icon. REFERENCES The references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Bandyopadhyay US 2012/0009896 A1 Jan. 12, 2012 Thielke US 2012/0259707 A1 Oct. 11, 2012 Tseng US 2012/0331548 A1 Dec. 27, 2012 Yuan US 2013/0346865 A1 Dec. 26, 2013 Berdis US 2014/0143355 A1 May 22, 2014 Yoon US 2014/0245202 A1 Aug. 28, 2014 Appeal 2021-001553 Application 15/125,535 3 REJECTIONS2 R1. Claims 45, 46, 49, 51, 54-56, 58, 60, 62, and 64-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Thielke, Tseng, and Berdis. Final Act. 7-21. R2. Claims 47, 48, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Thielke, Tseng, Berdis, and Yuan. Final Act. 22-25. R3. Claims 52 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Thielke, Tseng, Berdis, and Yoon. Final Act. 25-27. R4. Claims 53 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Thielke, Tseng, Berdis, Yoon, Bandyopadhyay. Final Act. 27-29. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Claims 45-49, 51-58, and 60-67 Firstly, Appellant contends that the “Examiner acknowledges that Thielke does not disclose the claimed first lock screen configuration 2 In the Advisory Action dated June 29, 2020, the Examiner indicates that Appellant’s “reply has overcome the following rejection(s): Claims 65 and 66 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, and Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.” Advisory Act. 2. As such, we shall treat the 112 and 101 rejections as being withdrawn by the Examiner. Id., see also Final Act. 3-5. Appeal 2021-001553 Application 15/125,535 4 interface. Instead, the Examiner asserts that Tseng discloses the [aforementioned feature].” Appeal Br. 8 (citations omitted). We disagree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that “Thielke teaches displaying a first lock screen configuration interface on the screen of the terminal with the terminal remaining in the lock screen state, but may not explicitly disclose that the lock screen configuration interface is displayed ‘in response to receiving a first user input on the first lock screen interface.’” Final Act. 8-9; see also Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 4. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that “it was not conceded that Thielke does not disclose the first lock configuration interface, but rather that the displaying of the first lock configuration screen interface was not explicitly taught to be ‘in response to receiving user input on the first lock screen interface.’” See Advisory Act. 2; see also Ans. 4. As such, the Examiner is relying on cumulative teachings from both Thielke and Tseng, regarding the lock screen configuration interface. Here, Appellant fails to rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding Thielke. Secondly, Appellant contends that “[w]hile Tseng has a locked screen 200, the locked screen 200 is displayed in response to a user device being powered up; the locked screen 200 is not displayed in response to a first user input on a first lock screen interface.” Appeal Br. 8-9. In other words, Appellant admits that Tseng teaches a locked configuration screen, but contends that this screen is displayed in response to power up of the device, as opposed to being displayed in response to a user input. However, we find, as further discussed below, that Appellant fails to demonstrate that Tseng’s power up function is distinguishable from a user input function. Appeal 2021-001553 Application 15/125,535 5 Thirdly, Regarding the claimed wherein text introduction of the first picture is displayed on the first lock screen configuration interface (see claim 45), Appellant contends that “Tseng only shows detailed content after the screen is unlocked and not while the screen is locked.” Appeal Br. 11. We disagree with Appellant. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Tseng depicts dynamic information items as a background of a lock screen” and “the user may perform an action . . . which causes the detailed content, and/or an expanded view, of that item to be displayed on the locked screen for viewing by the user.” Ans. 7, citing Tseng FIG. 3 and ¶ 23. For example, Tseng discloses “FIG. 2 illustrates an example locked screen 200 . . . with dynamic content displayed thereon. . . . The user may select a specific item 220 to further view detailed content of that item 220 and/or to interact with that item 220.” Tseng ¶ 12. Tseng further discloses: Suppose that a user device . . . is in a power-saving mode, with its display screen locked and darkened. A user may perform an action to the user device that causes the user device to power up. . . . For example, the user may push a key or button or touch the touch-screen of the user device. The screen of the user device is lighted up, but is still locked. Tseng ¶ 14. Tseng further discloses that a “swiping gesture may cause the detailed content of the information item to be displayed on the locked screen.” Tseng ¶ 23. In other words, Tseng discloses displaying a first lock screen in response to receiving a user input, e.g., pushing a key, whereby the screen is viewable but still locked. Tseng further teaches selecting an item, on the Appeal 2021-001553 Application 15/125,535 6 locked screen, to get further detailed content, whereby this detailed content is presented to a locked screen. Therefore, we find unavailing Appellant aforementioned contention that in Tseng “the locked screen 200 is not displayed in response to a first user input on a first lock screen interface” (Appeal Br. 8-9), given that Tseng powers up in a lock mode in response to the user pressing a key, consequently displaying the lock screen configuration interface. Hence, Tseng’s power up function is indistinguishable from a user input function. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 45, 55, and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over at least Thielke and Tseng, likewise with the rejection of dependent claims 46- 49, 51-54, 56-58, and 60-66, which are not argued separately with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 45-49, 51-58, and 60-67 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. Appeal 2021-001553 Application 15/125,535 7 In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 45, 46, 49, 51, 54-56, 58, 60, 62, 64-67 103 Thielke, Tseng, Berdis 45, 46, 49, 51, 54-56, 58, 60, 62, 64-67 47, 48, 57 103 Thielke, Tseng, Berdis, Yuan 47, 48, 57 52, 63 103 Thielke, Tseng, Berdis, Yoon 52, 63 53, 61 103 Thielke, Tseng, Berdis, Yoon, Bandyopadhyay 53, 61 Overall Outcome 45-49, 51-58, 60-67 No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED