Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2021

2020005295 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021)

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.
14/980,675 12/28/2015 Wenyu Zhou 4437-29500 9351
97698 7590 12/15/2021
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
4965 Preston Park Blvd, Suite 195E
Plano, TX 75093
EXAMINER
CORTES, HOWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2021 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):
aipatent@huawei.com
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENYU ZHOU

Appeal 2020-005295
Application 14/980,675
Technology Center 2100

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 15, 17, 18, 26, and 31–43 which
constitute all of the claims pending. Appeal Br. 3. Claims 2–14, 16, 19–25,
and 27–30 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Dec. 28, 2015 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed July 1, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Feb. 7, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 8, 2020
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed July 8, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers 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. 3.
Appeal 2020-005295
Application 14/980,675
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to the field
of information technologies, and in particular, to reducing the complexity of
message processing. Spec. ¶ 2. Devices are either in a normal use interface
or a lock screen interface. When the device is in a lock screen state a user
cannot send or delete a message. The claimed subject matter provides for
processing the message without unlocking the device. Id. ¶ 7.
Figures 7 and 8, reproduced below, are useful for understanding the
claimed subject matter:

Appeal 2020-005295
Application 14/980,675
3
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate a terminal in a locked state processing a message.
Id. ¶ 27. The device displays on the lock screen interface content
corresponding to the message, which can decrease the complexity of
message processing by avoiding opening a graphical interface of the
terminal device by a user before the content corresponding to the message is
viewed. Id. ¶ 40.
Claims 1, 15, and 26 are independent. Claim 1, with disputed
limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of processing a message on an electronic device,
comprising:
displaying a prompt message of an application program on
a lock screen interface of the electronic device when the
electronic device is in a lock screen state;
detecting a sliding gesture that drags a slider on the lock
screen interface from one location to another location;
displaying, in response to the sliding gesture, first prompt
information on the lock screen interface, wherein the first prompt
information confirms whether to process the prompt message;
ceasing, in response to confirmation corresponding to the
first prompt information being received, to display the prompt
message on the lock screen interface, wherein the confirmation
instructs the electronic device to provide a reminder of the
prompt message at a later time;
acquiring, after the confirmation is received, an unlock
operation instructing an exit from the lock screen interface;
displaying, in response to the unlock operation, a graphic
interface after the electronic device is unlocked; and
popping up second prompt information associated with the
prompt message on the graphic interface.
Claims App.
Appeal 2020-005295
Application 14/980,675
4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following single reference as evidence.3
Name Reference Date
Chen et al. US 2009/0267909 A1 Oct. 29, 2009
Lyon et al. US 2010/0257490 A1 Oct. 7, 2010
Birnbaum et al. US 2011/0264491 A1 Oct. 27, 2011

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1, 15, 17, 18, 26, 31, 33–36, 38–40, 42, and 43 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lyon
and Birnbaum. Final Act. 4–11.
Claims 32, 37, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lyon, Birnbaum, and Chen.
Final Act. 12–13.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6–12 and the Reply Brief, page 2–4.4 We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions on the obviousness rejections.
Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the
findings and reasons specific to the obviousness rejections set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appeal 2020-005295
Application 14/980,675
5
Brief. Final Act. 4–13; Ans. 4–7. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues that neither Lyon and Birnbaum, alone or in
combination, teaches the steps of “displaying, in response to the sliding
gesture, first prompt information on the lock screen interface, wherein
the first prompt information confirms whether to process the prompt
message” and “ceasing, in response to confirmation corresponding to the
first prompt information being received, to display the prompt message
on the lock screen interface, wherein the confirmation instructs the
electronic device to provide a reminder of the prompt message at a later
time,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–9. Appellant further argues
Lyon’s missed call alert is not displayed in response to a sliding gesture and
does not confirm whether to process prompt information. Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because, as correctly
noted by the Examiner, Lyon’s disclosure of a “missed call” alert being
presented when the user choses to decline a call (or other type of message)
and the user pushes a button on the device to do so teaches or at least
suggests the disputed limitation “displaying, in response to the sliding
gesture, first prompt information on the lock screen interface, wherein the
first prompt information confirms whether to process the prompt message.”
Lyon ¶ 126, Final Act. 4–5, Ans. 5–6. In addition, as further noted by the
Examiner, Lyon’s disclosure of dismissing the alert and moving it to a “alert
summary” (Lyon ¶ 127) and associating it with a reminder (Lyon ¶ 128)
teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation “ceasing, in response to
confirmation corresponding to the first prompt information being received,
to display the prompt message on the lock screen interface, wherein the
Appeal 2020-005295
Application 14/980,675
6
confirmation instructs the electronic device to provide a reminder of the
prompt message at a later time.” Lyon ¶¶ 118–120, 126–128, Final Act. 4–
5, Ans. 5–6. Although Lyon’s user presses a button (Lyon ¶ 126) instead of
making a “sliding gesture”, the Examiner also relies upon Birnbaum’s user
dragging a slider to teach or at least suggest a “sliding gesture.” See
Birnbaum ¶ 65, Figs. 13–14, Final Act. 6, Ans. 6–7. Additionally, as further
noted by the Examiner, Lyon’s user’s dragging an object in any direction on
the screen further buttresses the teaching or suggestion of a “sliding
gesture.” See Lyon ¶¶ 58, 69, Figs. 4a–4i, Ans. 6–7.
Appellant further argues “the combination of Lyon and Birnbaum fails
to detect a sliding gesture that drags a slider on a lock screen interface from
one location to another location.” Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant
argues “While Birnbaum has a slider, the slider is on an unlock screen, the
slider is not on a lock screen.” Appeal Br. 10, 12.
However, Appellant is arguing the references separately. The
Examiner cites to Lyon, not Birnbaum, for teaching the lock screen
interface. See Ans. 6–7, citing to Lyon Figs. 4a–4i, ¶¶ 52–71.
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 and grouped
claims 15, 17, 18, 26, 31, 33–36, 38–40, 42, and 43.
We also sustain the Examiner’s separate obviousness rejection of
claims 32, 37, and 41 because Appellant does not present substantive
arguments regarding the limitations of these claims.
Appeal 2020-005295
Application 14/980,675
7
VI. CONCLUSIONS
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1, 15, 17, 18, 26, and 31–43.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 15, 17, 18,
26, 31, 33–
36, 38–40,
42, 43
103 Leydon, Moore
1, 15, 17, 18,
26, 31, 33–
36, 38–40,
42, 43

32, 37, 41 103 Leydon, Moore, Wither 32, 37, 41
Overall
Outcome
1, 15, 17, 18, 26, 31–43

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1(iv). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED