HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

2020006592 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
14/984,335 12/30/2015 Wei Li HW 84032205US05 1294
74365 7590 11/03/2020
Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
PILLAI, NAMITHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
docketing@slatermatsil.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI LI, WEI ZHAO, and ZHISHAN ZHUANG
Appeal 2020-006592
Application 14/984,335
Technology Center 2100

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claim 40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
Appeal Brief 2, filed April 20, 2020 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2020-006592
Application 14/984,335

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application relates to managing notification bar messages.
See Specification ¶ 2, filed December 30, 2015. Claim 40 is the only claim
before us on appeal:
40. An electronic device comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing
programming for execution by the processor, the programming
including instructions to:
receive a first notification associated with a first
application installed on the electronic device, wherein the
first notification is an unread message;
receive a second notification associated with a
second application installed on the electronic device;
receive a first sliding gesture to open an expanded
notification bar of the electronic device;
display the first notification and the second
notification together with a third notification in the
expanded notification bar;
display a first delete button in the expanded
notification bar;
detect a first gesture on the first delete button;
delete the first and the second notifications in the
expanded notification bar in response to the first gesture
while the third notification remains in the expanded
notification bar;
detect a second gesture on a second delete button
displayed in the expanded notification bar; and
delete the third notification in the expanded
notification bar in response to the second gesture; and
wherein the first notification is an unread message.
Appeal Br. 17–18.
Appeal 2020-006592
Application 14/984,335

3
REJECTION
Claim 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
40 103 Miura2
DISCUSSION
Claim 40 recites “receive a first notification associated with a first
application installed on the electronic device, wherein the first notification is
an unread message” and “delete the first and the second notifications in the
expanded notification bar in response to the first gesture while the third
notification remains in the expanded notification bar.” Appeal Br. 17. The
Examiner found that Miura teaches or suggests the disputed limitations
because Miura discloses using “delete button 60f . . . to delete . . .
notifications 50d and 50e.” Answer 3, mailed July 24, 2020 (Ans.). The
Examiner explained that “[t]he first and second notifications are the
elements 50d and 50e and selecting the ‘Delete’ [button] 60f in the expanded
notification bar . . . can result in the deletion of these notifications while 50c
and 50b remain in the same expanded notification bar.” Ans. 3. The
Examiner acknowledged that “unread message notification 50c is different
from [notifications] 50d and 50e” but determined that “[o]ne of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that 50d and 50e could be easily replaced
with 50c[,] which is the unread message notification.” Ans. 3.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because the disputed
limitations require deleting the recited first and second notifications in
response to a single gesture, while Miura teaches using multiple gestures to

2 Miura (US 9,609,108 B2; March 28, 2017).
Appeal 2020-006592
Application 14/984,335

4
delete these notifications. Reply Brief 5, filed September 22, 2020 (Reply
Br.).
Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As asserted by
Appellant, claim 40 requires deleting “the first and the second notifications
. . . in response to” a single gesture—“the first gesture.” Appeal Br. 17. The
Examiner has not shown that Miura teaches deleting multiple notifications in
response to a single gesture. The parts of Miura relied on by the Examiner
describe dragging a single display area (settings button display area 50b) to
an area labeled “Edit of Display Item: Delete” and, in response, deleting the
display area. Miura 11:60–12:49. Although Miura teaches using “the same
control” to delete the display areas that the Examiner mapped to the first and
second notifications, Miura 12:50–53, this suggests using multiple drag-and-
delete operations to delete these areas, not using a single drag-and-delete
operation to do so.
The Examiner also found that Miura teaches or suggests these
limitations because Miura’s settings button display area 50b includes buttons
that correspond to various applications and thus using a drag-and-delete
operation to delete settings button display area 50b amounts to deleting “the
first and second notifications . . . in response to the first gesture.” See Final
Office Action 2–3, mailed November 20, 2019 (discussing the disputed
limitations in the context of canceled claims 38 and 39).
Appellant points out that claim 40 recites that “the first notification is
an unread message” and argues that settings button display area 50b does not
include an unread message. See Appeal Br. 8–9.
Appellant again has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Miura
explains that settings button display area 50b is for setting various functions
Appeal 2020-006592
Application 14/984,335

5
such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and GPS and indicates that a different area, notice
display area 50c, displays unread messages. See Miura 8:6–26, Fig. 7. So
although the Examiner found that “Miura discloses that the notification is an
unread message,” Final Act. 4, we agree with Appellant that settings button
display area 50b does not include an unread message. And if the Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to modify Miura’s settings button
display area 50b to include unread messages or combine settings button
display area 50b and notice display area 50c to arrive at the disputed
limitations, the Examiner failed to provide an adequate reason for making
these modifications.
For at least the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 40 under § 103.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
40 103 Miura 40

REVERSED