Ex Parte Yang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

13997672 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/997,672 06/25/2013
47795 7590 11/30/2018
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS RD., SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2620
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wenlong Yang
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.
ITL.2877US (P45955US) 9363
EXAMINER
HOPE, DARRIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
Inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENLONG YANG
Appeal2018-003758
Application 13/997,672 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JENNIFER S. BISK, and JOHN A. EV ANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 14, 17, and 22-34. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellant identifies Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 19, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed February 22, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
(mailed December 28, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed February 24,
2017, "Final Act.)," and the Specification (filed June 25, 2013, "Spec.") for
Appeal2018-003758
Application 13/997,672
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method for switching from an original screen
mode to an adjusted screen mode of a display screen that includes an extract
of a user interface. See Claim 1.
Invention
Claims 1, 22, and 24 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A method comprising:
in an original screen mode of a display screen, displaying
a user interface in an original size displaying area;
switching from the original screen mode to an adjusted
screen mode of the display screen that includes an extract of the
user interface, wherein when the switching is user-directed, the
extract of the user interface is to be created based on first user
input comprising a user selection of a portion of the user
interface to be extracted for the adjusted screen mode, the first
user input received during an adjusted screen mode
configuration;
in the adjusted screen mode, displaying the extract of the
user interface in a reduced size displaying area, which is
smaller than the original size displaying area, at least a part of
the reduced size displaying area adjacent to an inactive area of
the display screen, the inactive area of the display screen using
less power than an equivalent area of the original size
displaying area;
responsive to detection of an interruption in the first user
input, displaying a partially adjusted screen display that
includes a partial extract of the user interface until a trigger
their respective details.
2
Appeal2018-003758
Application 13/997,672
event is initiated and upon initiation of the trigger event,
resuming creation of the extract of the user interface; and
switching from the adjusted screen mode to a security
screen mode, the display screen in the security screen mode
displaying a virtual input device in the reduced size displaying
area to enable the user to input sensitive information without
observation by an unintended viewer.
Stanley
Lam
Hwang
Sirpal
Wadhwa
Lee
References and Rejections
US 2003/0071805 Al
US 2006/0132474 Al
US 2011/0175930 Al
US 2012/0084701 Al
US 2014/0092140 Al
US 2014/0157424 Al
US 2012/0315960 Al
Apr. 17, 2003
June 22, 2006
July 21, 2011
Filed Sept. 28, 2011
Filed Sept. 28, 2012
Filed Dec. 5, 2012
Dec. 13, 2012 Kim
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 17, 22-28, 31, and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wadhwa, Lam, and Lee.
Final Act. 2-18.
2. Claims 9, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wadhwa, Lam, Lee, and Kim. Final Act. 18-21.
3. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Wadhwa, Lam, Lee, and Hwang. Final Act. 21-22.
4. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Wadhwa, Lam, Lee, and Stanley. Final Act. 23-24.
5. Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wadhwa, Lam, Lee, and Sirpal. Final Act. 24--25.
3
Appeal2018-003758
Application 13/997,672
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 14, 17, and
22-34 in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We
consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal
Brief.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 17, 22-25, 31, AND 32: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
W ADHWA, LAM, LEE, AND VARIOUS SECONDARY REFERENCES.
Appellant argues this group of claims in view of independent Claim 1.
See App. Br. 11, 13.
Virtual input device.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "the display screen in the security screen
mode displaying a virtual input device in the reduced size displaying area."
Appellant contends Lee fails to teach that in a security screen mode a virtual
input device is displayed in the reduced size displaying area to enable the
user to input sensitive information. App. Br. 12. Appellant argues Lee
merely teaches that a screen can be placed into a privacy mode to obscure
information displayed, e.g., screen darkening, but that in this mode, there is
no virtual input device to receive user input. Id. at 12-13. Appellant argues
Lee teaches the privacy mode allows viewing, but not user input. Id. at 13
(citing Lee ,r,r 8 and 10) (cited by the Examiner). Contrary to the Examiner,
Appellant argues that when a user interacts by touching a portion of a
display, the privacy mode is deactivated, thus preventing its application to
Claim 1. Id.
4
Appeal2018-003758
Application 13/997,672
The Examiner finds Lee discloses switching to a security screen mode
wherein a virtual input device (i.e., 910) is displayed. Ans. 4 (citing Lee,
Figure 9, ,r,r 53, 54, and 57).
Appellant replies that in regard to 910, Lee merely teaches that a
privacy mode may be deactivated for a portion (i.e., 910) of the display, but
that there is no teaching of a virtual input device. Reply Br. 2 ( citing Lee,
Figure 9, ,r,r 53, 54, and 57).
Lee discloses:
In example implementation 900, user device 210 may
deactivate the privacy mode on a portion 910 of the display
based on a user interaction with user device 210.
Lee ,r 53. Lee discloses a user may deactivate a privacy mode on a portion
of the display.
We find Lee fails to teach "the display screen in the security screen
mode displaying a virtual input device in the reduced size displaying area,"
as recited in Claim 1. The Examiner relies solely upon Lee to teach this
limitation. See Ans. 4. Independent Claims 22 and 24 contain
commensurate recitations. Thus, we are constrained by the Record to
reverse the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 14, 17, and 22-34.
Because we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4,
6-10, 14, 17, and 22-34 for the reasons discussed supra, we need not
address Appellant's additional arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy,
742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Finding an administrative agency is at
liberty to reach a decision based on "a single dispositive issue.").
5
Appeal2018-003758
Application 13/997,672
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 14, 17, and 22-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
6