Ex Parte Hunt et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 3, 2019

14313743 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/313,743 06/24/2014
63203 7590
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
04/05/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James Anthony Hunt
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
RPS920090035-US-DIV 9545
EXAMINER
NUNEZ, JORDANY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2019 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES ANTHONY HUNT, XU HAISHENG,
KAREN RUTH KLUTTZ, CAI MING,
MICHAEL TERRELL VANOVER, and YAO YUAN
Appeal2018-007467
Application 14/313,743 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
AHMED, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 8, 15, 21-23, 25-33, 35, and 38--41, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to a "grid user-interface" that "includes a
number of medium-sized windows that are displayed in a grid format" and
are associated with different applications. Spec. ,r 3.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo Singapore
PTE. Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007467
Application 14/313,743
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A device, comprising:
a display;
a processor;
storage accessible to the processor and bearing
instructions executable by the processor to:
present a grid user-interface on the display, wherein
the grid user-interface comprises a plurality of windows
presented in a grid format, wherein the windows are
associated with respective applications, a first window of
the plurality of windows being associated with a first
application requiring entry of authentication data to use
the first application, the first application being different
from a second application that presents the grid user-
interface itself based on logon to the second application,
wherein responsive to the first window being selected the
first window animates to change its appearance to
present at least one authentication data entry field; and
responsive to successful authentication to use the
first application based at least in part on input to the at least
one authentication data entry field, animate the first
window to reveal the first application in unlocked form,
wherein responsive to successful authentication the first
application in unlocked form reveals a last-used interface
of the first application.
Rejections
Claims 1, 8, 15, 21, 23, 25-33, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Bodepudi et al. (US
2007/0016958 Al; published Jan. 18, 2007), Anderson et al. (US
2
Appeal2018-007467
Application 14/313,743
2003/0189597 Al; published Oct. 9, 2003), and Evans et al. (US
2004/0088709 Al; published May 6, 2004). Final Act. 2, 10.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the
combination of Bodepudi, Anderson, Evans, and J onasson et al. (US
2008/0301579 Al; published Dec. 4, 2008). Final Act. 7.
Claims 38--41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over
the combination of Bodepudi, Anderson, Evans, and Cisler et al. (US
2008/0307504 Al; published Dec. 11, 2008). Final Act. 8-9.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Evans teaches or suggests "the
first window animat[ ing] to change its appearance to present at least one
authentication data entry field," "responsive to the first window being
selected," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite "responsive to the first window
being selected the first window animates to change its appearance to present
at least one authentication data entry field."
The Examiner relies on Evans for disclosure of the "first window,"
and finds that "Evans teaches a password input field is displayed where there
was previously none." Ans. 4 (discussing Evans). The Examiner states that
"[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would generally recognize that this
teaching of Evan[s] is a prima facia example of the claimed 'animating a
change in[] appearance' of a window" because, "[f]or example, the window
where the password input field is eventually displayed is moved to the action
of displaying the password input field where previously there was none." Id.
3
Appeal2018-007467
Application 14/313,743
The Examiner further finds that "selecting the user ID icon [in Evans, to
display the password input field,] is the same as selecting a portion of the
window which contains the user ID icon," and consequently, Evans teaches
presenting an authentication data entry field "responsive to the first window
being selected," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 7 ( discussing Evans).
Appellants contend, "[n]owhere does the [relied-upon subject matter]
give any hint of a technique that the person having ordinary skill in the art
(PHOSITA) would interpret as a synonym for animation." Appeal Br. 5.
Appellants argue that the term "animate," as disclosed in the Specification,
"is used to describe actual computer animations such as flipping a window
(paragraph 19), sliding a window (paragraph 42), and fading an object
(paragraph 42)." Reply Br. 2. In contrast, Appellants argue, the disclosure
found in paragraph 23 of Evans "teaches a multiple user logon area
(referring to Figure 2 of Evans) with selectable user identifiers," whereby
"[l]ogon is accomplished by a user selecting one of the identifiers, which
causes a password input field to be displayed to receive a password."
Appeal Br. 6. Further, Appellants contend, the password entry field in
Evans "is not presented responsive to the first window being selected as
claimed but responsive to selection of a user ID icon." Id. at 7 (emphasis
added).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how Evans teaches or suggests animating a first window, or doing
so in response to the first window being selected. Although Evans teaches a
"[l]ogon screen 100 [that] includes a multiple user logon area 104 wherein
the user is presented with selectable user identifiers," selecting the identifier
or icon merely results in "a password input field 114 [being] displayed and
4
Appeal2018-007467
Application 14/313,743
configured to receive [a] password." Evans ,r 23. The claim however
requires that the window "animates to change its appearance," thereby
requiring something more than just a single change in the appearance of the
window in order to meet the limitation. Displaying the password input field
where none previously existed merely changes the text identifier displayed.
Evans ,r 23 ("William may begin logging on to the operating system by
selecting either text identifier 110 and/or graphical identifier 112 .... [A]
password input field 114 is displayed and configured to receive his
password."). It is not clear from the record before us that Evans teaches
animating to change the appearance of the window, such as flipping, sliding,
or fading.
Moreover, we do not agree with the Examiner that selecting the user
ID icon in Evans is the same as selecting a window, as recited in claim 1.
As the Examiner acknowledges, "the user ID icon exists within the window"
and comprises only "a portion of the window." Ans. 7. Indeed, a password
input field for a specific user is presented only when that specific user's icon
is selected; selection of a different user's icon results in a presentation of a
different password input field, and selection of other portions of the window
result in other actions, such as shutting down the computer (Evans ,r 24,
Fig. 2), or no action at all. The Examiner has thus not shown how Evans
accomplishes animation of the first window "responsive to the first window
being selected."
Evans, therefore, does not teach or suggest "the first window
animat[ing] to change its appearance to present at least one authentication
data entry field," "responsive to the first window being selected," as recited
5
Appeal2018-007467
Application 14/313,743
in claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on Bodepudi or Anderson as
meeting this claim limitation.
Accordingly, given the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and their dependent
claims 21-23, 25-33, 35, and 38--41.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 8, 15, 21-23, 25-33, 35, and 38--41.
REVERSED
6