HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2020

13838386 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
13/838,386 03/15/2013 TING ZHANG 13674-1220
(83352656US04)
7751
93823 7590 03/24/2020
BGL/Huawei
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2020 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 TING ZHANG
Appeal 2019-000973
Application 13/838,386
Technology Center 2600

Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, 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 25–27, 31–33, 37, and 38, all of the
pending claims.2 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 the real party in interest as HUAWEI
DEVICE CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–24, 28–30, and 34–36 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 12–14.
Appeal 2019-000973
Application 13/838,386

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “a method for processing a touch
screen terminal object” by using a container interface. Spec. ¶ 4.3 The
“container interface is placed at the top of all interfaces, in this way, even
though the user performs switching between different interfaces, the
container interface can also be seen by the user, and it is convenient for the
user to operate.” Spec. ¶ 27.
Claims 25 and 31 are independent. Claim 25, reproduced below with
limitations at issue italicized, exemplifies the claimed subject matter:
25. A method for processing an icon of an application
program, comprising:
displaying a source interface in a single touch screen of a
terminal, wherein a first icon of a first application program and
a second icon of a second application program are displayed in
the source interface;
detecting a first gesture dragging the first icon from the
source interface to a predetermined position viewable in the
single touch screen of the terminal;
in response to the first gesture, displaying a container
interface together with the source interface in the single touch
screen, and displaying fully the first icon in the container
interface which is different from the first icon, wherein the
container interface is displayed at the predetermined position of
the single touch screen;
receiving a second gesture to place the second icon from
the source interface into the container interface;

3 Throughout this Decision we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed
June 18, 2013 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action mailed February 15,
2018 (“Final Act.”); (3) the Appeal Brief filed July 9, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”);
and (4) the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 18, 2018 (“Ans.”); and (5)
the Reply Brief filed November 16, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-000973
Application 13/838,386

3
displaying fully the first icon together with the second
icon in the container interface;
receiving an interface switching instruction to switch the
source interface to a target interface, wherein the source
interface and the target interface are different interfaces;
in response to the interface switching instruction,
displaying the container interface together with the target
interface in the single touch screen, wherein the source interface
is ceased to be displayed, the container interface remains fully
displayed in response to the interface switching instruction to
remain visible to a user until the container interface is closed;
receiving a third gesture to drag the second icon from the
container interface into the target interface, wherein the
container remains fully displayed in response to the third
gesture; and
receiving a fourth gesture to drag the first icon from the
container interface into the target interface.
Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCES
The references4 relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Nurmi US 2012/0054657 A1 Mar. 1, 2012
Ledet US 2012/0084689 A1 Apr. 5, 2012
Sirpal US 2012/0110486 A1 May 3, 2012
Han US 2012/0246594 A1 Sept. 27, 2012

4 All citations to the references use the first-named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-000973
Application 13/838,386

4
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 25–27, 31–33, 37, and 38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nurmi, Sirpal,
Han, and Ledet. Final Act. 2–10.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2017).
The Examiner rejects independent claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nurmi, Sirpal, Han, and Ledet.
Final Act. 2–6. Of particular relevance, the Examiner relies on the
combination of Nurmi and Sirpal to teach or suggest “displaying fully the
first icon in the container interface which is different from the first icon,” as
recited in claim 25. Id. at 4–6.
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 7. As such, we
select claim 25 as representative of the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2017). Appellant argues that Nurmi fails to teach
displaying fully the first icon in the container interface which is different
from the first icon, as recited in claim 25, because “Nurmi intends to have an
indicia instead of the selected item itself displayed at the respective edge in
order to indicate that the selected item has been copied, while the indicia
remains ONLY partially displayed unless a user deliberately put out the
whole indicia from the respective edge.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphases omitted).
Appeal 2019-000973
Application 13/838,386

5
The Examiner finds Nurmi’s indicia teaches the first icon but notes,
Nurmi does not teach that the indicia is fully displayed in
the edge region. However, Sirpal teaches a method of copying
data from an application 1 to a Universal clipboard. The copied
data is displayed in the Universal clipboard as items 712a-N. The
items 712a-N are fully displayed in the Universal clipboard (i.e.,
not partially).
Ans. 4.
Appellant’s argument based on Nurmi is unpersuasive because the
Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Nurmi and Sirpal rather than
Nurmi alone to teach the limitation at issue, and therefore the argument is
not responsive to the rejection. See Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac.
Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (rejecting argument
directed at the wrong reference). We, therefore, determine the Examiner has
shown that all elements of the limitation at issue here are taught by the
combination of Nurmi and Sirpal and that Appellant has not demonstrated
error in the Examiner’s findings.
Next, Appellant argues,
the modification proposed by the Office Action would render
Nurmi being modified (to display the selected image instead of
an indicia of the selected image, and add “container interface” to
fully display visible indicia) in a manner unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose (to only display an indicia of the selected
image, and keep a visible indicia itself ONLY partially displayed
at the respective edge unless a user deliberately put out the whole
indicia from the respective edge).
Appeal Br. 9 (citing MPEP § 2143.01). Appellant further argues that the
modification “would also change the principle of operation of Nurmi.” Id. at
10 (citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959)); Reply 4–5.
Appeal 2019-000973
Application 13/838,386

6
The Examiner counters that “the proposed combination of Nurmi and
Sirpal would not render the system and method of Nurmi inoperable for its
intended purpose” because “[t]he method of Nurmi of partially displaying
the indicia is just a design choice.” Ans. 5.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. The argument that the
Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings of the references would
render Nurmi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and fundamentally
change Nurmi’s principle of operation is not supported by evidence found in
the record and is, instead, supported only by attorney argument which
“cannot take the place of evidence.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974). Of particular relevance, Appellant has not provided
sufficient evidence establishing Nurmi’s principle of operation or intended
purpose. As a result, Appellant fails to demonstrate why the constraints of
MPEP § 2143.01 and In re Ratti apply to Appellant’s claimed method.
Claim 25 further recites “the container interface remains fully
displayed in response to the interface switching instruction to remain visible
to a user until the container interface is closed.” Appeal Br. 12. The
Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Nurmi, Sirpal, and Han to
teach or suggest this limitation. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 5–6.
Appellant argues,
[t]he Final Office Action acknowledges that Numi [sic] and
Sirpal do not teach the container interface remains fully
displayed in response to the interface switching instruction to
remain visible to a user until the container interface is closed (see
page 5, Office Action). The Final Office Action, however, does
not provide support to show how or explain why Han, on its
record, cures the deficiencies of Numi [sic] and Sirpal.
Appeal Br. 8.
Appeal 2019-000973
Application 13/838,386

7
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. First, we note that the
Examiner does not “acknowledge[] that Numi [sic] and Sirpal do not teach”
the disputed limitation, as Appellant argues. Id. To the contrary, the
Examiner finds that “Nurmi discloses that ‘the displayed visible indicia may
remain on a screen of the display even when a view of the display is
change[d]’” and that “Sirpal teaches that the Universal clipboard remains
fully displayed in response to the switching instruction (i.e., switching
between application 1 and application 3).” Ans. 5–6 (citing Nurmi ¶ 9,
emphasis omitted, Sirpal Figs. 7A, 7B). We note that the combination of
teachings in Nurmi and Sirpal alone, without the additional disclosure of
Han, teaches or suggests the limitation at issue. The Examiner, however,
additionally finds Han teaches that “‘the clipboard window may be
displayed whenever the clipboard stores data items,’” and, therefore,
the combination of Nurmi, Sirpal, and Han would render a
method of dragging an item from a source interface to a
Universal clipboard. When the item is stored in the Universal
clipboard, the Universal clipboard would be displayed. The
Universal clipboard remains displayed, even when a view of the
display is changed, until the last item is moved out from the
Universal clipboard to a target interface (e.g., an email).
Ans. 6 (citing Han ¶ 79, emphasis omitted).
Appellant’s argument based on Han is unpersuasive because the
Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Nurmi, Sirpal, and Han rather
than Han alone to teach the limitation at issue. Accordingly, this argument
is not responsive to the rejection. Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd., 357 F.3d at 1336–
37. We determine, therefore, that the Examiner has shown all elements of
the limitation at issue here are taught by the combination of Nurmi, Sirpal,
Appeal 2019-000973
Application 13/838,386

8
and Han, and that Appellant has not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s
findings.
Appellant next argues that “Jeong fails to cure the deficiencies of
cited art discussed above.” Appeal Br. 10. This argument is unpersuasive.
As the Examiner points out, “Jeong was not applied to the rejection of claim
25 in the Final Office Action dated 02/15/2018.” Ans. 6.
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 25.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as
independent claim 31, which recites similar claim language and for which
Appellant presents similar arguments. We likewise sustain the obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 26, 27, 32, 33, 37, and 38, which Appellant
does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 11.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25–27, 31–33, 37, and
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Nurmi, Sirpal, Han, and Ledet.
Appeal 2019-000973
Application 13/838,386

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
25–27, 31–
33, 37, 38
103 Nurmi, Sirpal, Han,
Ledet
25–27, 31–
33, 37, 38

TIME PERIOD FOR 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