Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 25, 2020

14503355 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 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.
14/503,355 09/30/2014 Lawrence Y. YANG P22719US3/77770000355103 3214
150004 7590 08/25/2020
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
4655 Executive Dr
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
EXAMINER
YU, XIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2020 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):
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patent.docket@dentons.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAWRENCE Y. YANG,
ROBERTO GARCIA, JUSTIN WOOD, RICHARD R. DELLINGER,
IMRAN CHAUDHRI, STEPHEN O. LEMAY, EUGENE M. BISTOLAS,
JAE WOO CHANG, MARCEL VAN OS, MEGAN M. FROST, and
JOSHUA B. DICKENS
Appeal 14/503,355
Application 2020-004883
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–14, 16–34, 36–52, and 54–60, which are all of the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004883
Application 14/503,355

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to user interfaces for sharing a user’s location
with others. Spec. ¶ 3, Title.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising
instructions, which when executed by an electronic device with
a display and a touch-sensitive surface, cause the device to:
display, on the display, a first messaging user interface of an
application, the first messaging user interface including:
a message region that includes a plurality of messages sent
between a first participant and a second participant in a
message conversation, and
a control affordance separate from the message region;
while displaying, on the display, the message region that includes
the plurality of messages sent between the first participant and
the second participant, receiving a touch input that corresponds
to activation of the control affordance displayed separate from
the message region in the first messaging user interface of the
application;
in response to detecting the first touch input that corresponds to
activation of the control affordance in the first messaging user
interface of the application, display a second messaging user
interface of the application, the second messaging user interface
including:
a share-location affordance for sharing a dynamic
location of the first participant with the second participant
in the message conversation, wherein the dynamic
location is updated as the location of the first participant
in the message conversation changes over at least a
predetermined time period; and
Appeal 2020-004883
Application 14/503,355

3
a send-location affordance for sending a static location to
the second participant in the message conversation,
wherein the static location is not updated over time;
detect a second touch input; and
in accordance with the second touch input corresponding to a
selection of the share-location affordance:
provide the second participant in the message conversation
with dynamic location information enabling the second
participant in the message conversation to determine a
current location of the first participant in the message
conversation during at least the predetermined time
period; and
in accordance with the second touch input corresponding to a
selection of the send-location affordance:
provide the second participant in the message conversation
with static location information enabling the second
participant in the message conversation to determine the
static location, wherein the static location is not updated
over time.
REJECTION
Claims 1–14, 16–34, 36–52, and 54–60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Altman (US 2008/0070593 A1; Mar. 20, 2008),
Oplinger (US 2015/0172393 A1; June 18, 2015), Zhang (US 2016/0294958
A1; Oct. 6, 2016), and Shan (US 2016/0277885 A1; Sept. 22, 2016). Final
Act. 4.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of references
teaches or suggests the limitations italicized above in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Altman and Shan teach or
suggest “the static location corresponds to a location of the electronic device
Appeal 2020-004883
Application 14/503,355

4
at the time of detecting the second touch input corresponding to the selection
of the send-location affordance,” as recited in claim 58?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–14, 16–34, 36–52, and 54–57
Claim 1 recites that the second messaging user interface includes
(1) “a share-location affordance for sharing a dynamic location” that is
“updated as the location of the first participant . . . changes over at least a
predetermined time period” and (2) “a send-location affordance for sending
a static location” that is “not updated over time.”
Appellant argues:
the cited references, alone or combination, fail to disclose a
single interface that includes both a share-location affordance for
sharing a dynamic location in a messaging conversation that is
updated as the location of the user changes over at least a
predetermined time period, and a send-location affordance for
sending a static location in the messaging conversation that is not
updated over time.
Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant first addresses each prior art reference individually in
arguing that (1) “Altman does not disclose an interface that includes a share-
location affordance for sharing a dynamic location”; (2) Oplinger only
teaches “options for extending the amount of time the location will be
shared” (i.e., dynamic location); (3) “Zhang describes a user sharing
directions to a destination, instead of sharing the user’s location”; and
(4) although Shan discloses sharing “both static location information and
dynamic location information,” “Shan fails to disclose . . . any options . . .
for selecting between the static location information and the dynamic
location information.” Appeal Br. 13–20.
Appeal 2020-004883
Application 14/503,355

5
We are not persuaded by these arguments because “[n]on-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner notes,
these “piecemeal” arguments only address the references individually, not in
combination. Ans. 6–12. In the Examiner’s combination, in addition to
“Altman’s teachings of providing a ‘static’ location information,”
there would be a separate interface window (from Oplinger’s and
Zhang’s teachings) with one or more buttons/affordances (as
taught from Zhang’s teachings), selectable by a first user
participant, and allowing that first user participant to share either
one or both of the dynamic and static location information with
one or more other user participants (as taught from Shan’s
teachings).
Ans. 7, 6.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner’s rationales for combining
the references “amount to nothing more than vague statements that . . . the
resulting combined system would generally be ‘better’ than the individual
systems.” Appeal Br. 20–21.
We are not persuaded by this argument either. The Examiner notes
that “many of the provided examples and concepts overlapped” between
references, with some references merely “more expressly and clearly”
illustrating how a particular concept might be implemented. Ans. 13. The
Examiner therefore determines that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art that . . . how the system presents those two options
[i.e., static location and dynamic location] . . . is a design choice,” with
buttons from Oplinger or Zhang being obvious candidates for such a design
choice. Id. “One of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have been motivated
Appeal 2020-004883
Application 14/503,355

6
because in designing a user implementation or user interface . . . having both
options available to choose from[] is . . . more user friendly and giv[es] the
user(s) more control . . . .” Id. at 14. For example, “when two messaging
participants are planning to meet up, one participant may have reasons to
want to share a dynamic version of their location information (over a static
version of their location information)” such as “in case they are moving
around from one location to the next.” Id. “Similarly, there can be
situations wherein a user can decide they will remain at one location and just
share a static location” (e.g., if the user is not moving around or if the user
wishes to protect their privacy). Id.
The Examiner’s determinations are supported by the record. For
example, Altman’s ability to “turn off the automatic location updating
process” that the Examiner relies on is part of Altman’s “Security and
Privacy Features” that recognize the sensitive nature of sharing a location
with others and provide features to limit who can see the user’s location and
when. See Altman ¶¶ 56–61; Ans. 6–7 (discussing Altman ¶ 60). Oplinger
provides a similar functionality of limiting the amount of time a recipient
can see a user’s location. E.g., Oplinger Fig. 4D; Ans. 8–9 (discussing
Oplinger Fig. 4D). Given that the prior art teaches providing at least one of
a static or dynamic location and the privacy concerns of sharing locations,
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s determination that
it would have been an obvious design choice to provide buttons (as in
Oplinger and Zhang) for the user to choose either a static location (as in
Altman and Shan) or a dynamic location (as in Oplinger and Shan).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2–14, 16–34, 36–52, and 54–57, which Appellant argues are
Appeal 2020-004883
Application 14/503,355

7
patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 21; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In the event of further prosecution, however, the Examiner and
Appellant may want to consider any relevance of Oplinger’s Figure 3C,
which is reproduced below:

Figure 3C of Oplinger “shows an example of a GUI 330 that prompts the
user to select or input a time period for the location sharing event.” Oplinger
¶ 53. In particular, Figure 3C displays “options for sharing location
information for an ensuing amount of time, such as the next sixty minutes.”
Id. In the same user interface screen, Figure 3C also “includes an option for
sharing location information for a particular point on [the] map,” which
Appeal 2020-004883
Application 14/503,355

8
Figure 3C labels as “Point on map (static)” under the heading “Share My
Location.” Id. The Examiner and Appellant may wish to consider whether
Figure 3C and the accompanying text disclose or render obvious a single
user interface screen with separate buttons for sharing a dynamic location
and sharing a static location.
Claims 58–60
Dependent claims 58–60 recite “the static location corresponds to a
location of the electronic device at the time of detecting the second touch
input corresponding to the selection of the send-location affordance.”
Appellant argues that Altman’s disclosure of sending a static location
when the auto-update feature is off means that “the last known location of
the user ‘may have been manually set days ago.’” Appeal Br. 22 (quoting
Altman ¶ 60).
However, we agree with the Examiner that even though Altman’s
location “may” be manually set days ago, Altman still renders obvious that
the static location may be more recent, such as the current location when
asking someone to come meet you. Ans. 15–16. We further agree with the
Examiner that the Appeal Brief fails to address the Examiner’s reliance on
Shan. Id. at 16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 58–60.
As with claim 1, in the event of further prosecution, the Examiner and
Appellant may wish to consider any relevance of Oplinger Figure 3C and its
description in paragraph 53.
Appeal 2020-004883
Application 14/503,355

9
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of the rejection:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–14, 16–34,
36–52, 54–60
103 Altman, Oplinger,
Zhang, Shan
1–14, 16–34,
36–52, 54–60

TIME TO RESPOND
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.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED