Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 4, 2021

2020004770 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 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.
14/611,446 02/02/2015 Suzanne Marion Beaumont RPS920140235US
(018-0014)
5162
124906 7590 10/04/2021
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
1423 Strassner Dr.
Suite 100
Brentwood, MO 63144
EXAMINER
MONK, MARK T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2021 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):
docket@splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUZANNE MARION BEAUMONT
Appeal 2020-004770
Application 14/611,446
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCKEOWN, 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 1–5, 8–14, 16, 17, 19–21, and 23–28.
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 Lenovo
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004770
Application 14/611,446
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “methods and devices for dismissing
notifications presented on a device.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving communications content at a device;
presenting, using a processor, a preview notification on
a device, the preview notification presenting a preview portion
of the communications content;
initiating detection of a gaze event utilizing a camera and
processor of the device without user input or user action;
detecting the gaze event based on the image frame data
collected by the camera, and
dismissing the notification based on the gaze event.

REFERENCE(S)
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Christie US 2009/0177981 A1 July 9, 2009
Han US 2014/0198032 A1 July 17, 2014
Pardehpoosh US 2013/0019237 A1 Jan. 17, 2013
Krulce US 2014/0267034 A1 Sept. 18, 2014

REJECTION(S)
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 17, 19, 23, and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Krulce and Christie. Final Act. 7–15.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Krulce, Christie, and Han. Final Act. 15–20.
Appeal 2020-004770
Application 14/611,446
3
The Examiner rejected claim 9, 10, 21, 24, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Krulce, Christie, and Pardehpoosh. Final Act.
20–23, 29–33.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Krulce and Pardehpoosh. Final Act. 23–29.
The Examiner rejected claims 11–14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Krulce, Pardehpoosh, and Han. Final Act. 33–38.
OPINION
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON KRULCE AND CHRISTIE
Claims 1–3, 17, 19, 23, and 25
Appellant argues Krulce fails to teach or suggest dismissing preview
notifications based on gaze detection. Appeal Br. 13. According to
Appellant,
Krulce discusses systems and methods that allow a user to
activate and unlock a display based on detecting a user’s gaze.
Krulce goes not to describe using active eye tracking in
connection with applications on the device that the user has
opened and is actively using. The presentation of a preview
notification and dismissal thereof through gaze detection
concerns an entirely different aspect and use of the device.
Appeal Br. 13; see also id. at 18–20 (asserting Krulce only teaching
unlocking a display based on gaze detection and, once activated,
performing certain user actions through eye movement); Appeal Br. 25–26
(presenting similar arguments with respect to claim 17). Appellant
maintains that this is distinct from the claimed dismissing a preview
notification. Id. Appellant also asserts “Christie is not concerned with
gaze detection and does not offer any legitimate reason to utilize gaze
Appeal 2020-004770
Application 14/611,446
4
detection to dismiss notifications.” Appeal Br. 13, 21; see also Appeal Br.
25–26 (presenting similar arguments with respect to claims 17).
Notably, Appellant fails to consider Krulce’s teaching of using eye
gaze to dismiss an alert. Krulce generally teaches systems and methods
“that allow a user to interact with a device using gaze detection.” Krulce
Abstr. For example, Krulce teaches an optical sensor module that detects
when a user moves his/her eyes from one side of the display to the other in
a swipe motion. This eye movement in Krulce “is interpreted as a swipe to
content displayed on display component [], dismissing a displayed alert
message, moving to a next message, etc. such that dismissing the received
alert message notification is performed based on the gaze event of the
user.” Ans. 4 (citing Krulce ¶ 29). The Examiner then substitutes Krulce’s
dismissed displayed alert with Chistie’s preview notification to arrive at
the claimed invention. Ans. 4–5.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, Krulce is not limited to only
using eye gaze to activate a display nor does Krulce require this activation
to perform any other tasks based on eye gaze. Namely, Krulce describes
a gaze may be detected by determining eye direction of a
detected face, such as user 120. According to some
embodiments, optical detection sensor module 122 may be
configured to detect a face and then a gaze of user 120 for use in
determining whether to activate or deactivate display component
114, pass a security check of device 100, and/or display an alert
or message on display component 114.
Krulce ¶ 19 (emphasis added). In other words, Krulce teaches using eye
gaze for a variety of actions, including dismissing an alert. See, e.g.,
Krulce ¶ 29. Moreover, even if Krulce did require an initial activation, this
is not precluded by the claimed invention. Instead, the claims merely
recite initiating a gaze event utilizing a camera and processor, detecting the
Appeal 2020-004770
Application 14/611,446
5
gaze event, and dismissing the notification based on the gaze event.
Appellant’s arguments are, therefore, unpersuasive.
Appellant’s arguments based on Christie are likewise unavailing.
Namely, the Examiner does not rely on Christie as teaching gaze detection
or dismissing based on gaze detection. See Final Act. 7–11; Ans. 4–6.
Instead, the Examiner relies on Christie for the limited disclosure of a
preview notification. See Final Act. 10–11; Ans. 5–6. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious at the
time of the invention to combine Krulce and Christie to arrive at the
claimed invention. As the Examiner explains, it is merely a simple
substitution to replace Krulce’s alert with Christie’s preview notification.
Final Act. 10–11. More specifically,
[Replacing Krulce’s alert with Christie’s preview notification]
would result in the simple substitution of prior art elements to
yield predictable results - namely the ability to provide a method
that displays an incoming portion of a message on a device while
the device is locked. . . that [can be] dismissed by the gaze of a
user reading the alert message. . . .
Final Act. 10–11. In other words, Krulce teaches dismissing alerts based
on a gaze event. Krulce ¶ 29. Christie teaches that it is advantageous to
display preview notifications for incoming messages on a locked device
display. Christie ¶ 475. It would have been readily apparent to a skilled
artisan, in view of these teachings together, to modify Krulce to include
Christie’s preview notifications that can also be dismissed by a gaze event.
Appeal 2020-004770
Application 14/611,446
6
This combination is merely a simply substitution of known prior art
elements to obtain a predictable result. As such, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant does not separately argue the limitations of dependent
claims 2, 3, 19, 23, and 25. Instead, Appellant relies on the arguments
presented for claims 1 and 17. See Appeal Br. 30–31. For the reasons
discussed above, we are also not persuaded of error in the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3, 19, 23, and 25.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we sustain the rejection
of claims 1–3, 17, 19, 23, and 25 as unpatentable over Krulce and Christie.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON KRULCE, CHRISTIE, AND HAN
Claims 4, 5, and 20
Appellant does not separately argue the limitations of dependent
claim 4. See Appeal Br. 31–32. With respect to claims 5 and 20,
Appellant additionally argues that the cited combination fails to teach
identifying a gaze direction vector being directed away from the device, as
recited in claim 5, and determining changes in the line of sight from a first
direction that includes the notification to a second direction that excludes
the notification, as recited in claim 20. Appeal Br. 32–33. The Examiner,
however, explains that Han teaches using collected information from a
camera unit to track a user’s eyeball position and using this tracking
information to determine whether a message is read, i.e. directed at the
device, or unread, i.e., directed away from the device. Ans. 36 (citing Han
¶ 33). Similarly, the Examiner explains that Han’s tracking, along with of
Krulce and Christie, teach determining changes in the line of sight from a
first direction that includes the notification, i.e., read message, to a second
Appeal 2020-004770
Application 14/611,446
7
direction that excludes the notification, i.e., unread message. Id. Krulce
also generally teaches performing actions based on a user’s line of sight.
For example, Krulce describes a user may move his/her eyes from one side
to the other, i.e., changing direction away from the device or changing
from a first direction that includes the notification to a second direction
that excludes the notification, that is interpreted as a swipe. Krulce ¶ 29.
As such, considering the teachings of Krulce, Christie, and Han combined,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining the
combination at least suggest the limitations of claims 5 and 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 20 as
unpatentable over Krulce, Christie, and Han.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON KRULCE AND PARDEHPOOSH
Claims 8, 26, and 27
With respect to claim 8, Appellant presents similar arguments to
those discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 17. See Appeal Br. 33–
38. For example, Appellant argues that Krulce does not disclose
presenting a device or application update notification, instead of a preview
notification as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 34. Similarly, Appellant
argues, “Pardehpoosh is not concerned with gaze detection and does not
offer any legitimate reason to utilize gaze detection to dismiss device or
application update notifications.” Id. For the reasons discussed above, the
similar arguments are unpersuasive. For example, the Examiner merely
relies on Pardehpoosh as teaching the device or application update
notification. See, e.g., Final Act. 26–27.
Appellant’s arguments challenging the reasons to combine Krulce
and Pardehpoosh, which are also similar to the arguments presented with
Appeal 2020-004770
Application 14/611,446
8
respect to claim 1, are likewise unpersuasive. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 35–36.
As the Examiner explains,
One skilled in the art would recognize that a displayed
notification on Krulce et al device would be improve to display
a selectable link 461 that a user selects so as to receive an
application update for the device. The proposed modification
would yield any predictable result to improve Krulce et al
invention in a similar way as Pardehpoosh et al.
Ans. 49; see also Ans. 46–50; Final Act. 27. As such, based on the record
before us, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 8, 26, and 27 as
unpatentable over Krulce and Pardehpoosh.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON KRULCE, PARDEHPOOSH, AND HAN
Claims 11–14 and 16
Appellant does not separately argue the limitations of dependent
claims 11, 13, 14, and 16, but instead relies on the arguments presented for
claim 8. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 41–43. For the reasons discussed above, we
find these arguments unpersuasive.
With respect to claim 12, Appellant additionally argues that Han
fails to teach or suggest the claimed gaze engagement and gaze
termination. Appeal Br. 41–42. The Examiner, however, relies on the
combination of Krulce, Pardehpoosh, and Han as teaching the disputed
limitations. See, e.g., Final Act. 12; Ans. 60–61. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426;
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d at 1097.
Appeal 2020-004770
Application 14/611,446
9
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11–14 and 16 as
unpatentable over Krulce, Pardehpoosh, and Han.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON KRULCE, CHRISTIE, AND
PARDEHPOOSH
Claims 9, 10, 21, 24, and 28
Appellant does not separately argue the limitations of dependent
claims 9, 10, 21, 24, and 28, but instead relies on the arguments presented
for claims 1, 8, and 17. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 39–40. For the reasons
discussed above, we find these arguments unpersuasive. As such, we
similarly not persuaded of error in the rejections of claims 9, 10, 21, 24,
and 28 as unpatentable over the Krulce, Christie, and Pardehpoosh.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection.

Appeal 2020-004770
Application 14/611,446
10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 8–14, 16, 17, 19–21, and
23–28 are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 17, 19,
23, 25
103 Krulce, Christie 1–3, 17, 19,
23, 25

4, 5, 20 103 Krulce, Christie,
Han
4, 5, 20
9, 10, 21,
24, 28
103 Krulce, Christie,
Pardehpoosh
9, 10, 21,
24, 28

8, 26, 27 103 Krulce,
Pardehpoosh
8, 26, 27
11–14,16 103 Krulce,
Pardehpoosh, Han
11–14, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 8–14,
16, 17, 19–
21, 23–28

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