Ling Tang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2020

14285999 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 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.
14/285,999 05/23/2014 Ling Tang 210167.0475.9 (P460) 7144
142839 7590 09/14/2020
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP /Huawei
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
FIBBI, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2020 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):
FIP_Group@bstz.com
KGSPatents@wbd-us.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LING TANG
____________________

Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,9991
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a method for switching and presenting a
terminal operation mode. The method comprises acquiring information
about a space status change of a terminal (e.g., a mobile phone or tablet),
determining whether an extent of the space status change falls within a

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant states the real party in interest is Huawei
Technologies Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

2
preset range, and determining an operation mode of the terminal when the
extent of the space status change falls within the preset range. The operation
mode includes a first operation mode that facilitates operation of interface
elements with the left hand, and a second operation mode that facilitates
operation of interface elements with the right hand. Abstract. Information
about a space status change includes acquiring a direction of a space status
movement change and the amplitude of the space status movement change.
The direction of the space status movement change includes a leftward
movement change in which the terminal moves toward the left hand side of a
user of the terminal, or a rightward movement change in which the terminal
moves toward the right hand side of the user. Spec. ¶ 7.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for switching and presenting a terminal
operation mode, the method comprising:
acquiring information about a space status change of a
terminal by acquiring a direction of a space status movement
change and an amplitude of the space status movement change
of the terminal, wherein the direction of the space status
movement change of the terminal comprises a leftward
movement change or a rightward movement change, the
leftward movement change indicates that the terminal moves
laterally towards the left hand side of a user of the terminal
when the screen of the terminal faces the user of the terminal,
and the rightward movement change indicates the terminal
moves laterally towards the right hand side of the user of the
terminal when the screen of the terminal faces the user of the
terminal, and the amplitude of the space status movement
change comprises a leftward movement amplitude or a
rightward movement amplitude of the terminal;
determining whether an extent of the space status change
of the terminal falls within a preset range according to the
information about the space status change;
Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

3
determining an operation mode of the terminal when the
extent of the space status change of the terminal falls within the
preset range, wherein the operation mode comprises a first
operation mode or a second operation mode, the first operation
mode facilitates an operation on an operable element in an
operation interface of the terminal with the left hand, and the
second operation mode facilitates an operation on an operable
element in an operation interface of the terminal with the right
hand; and
presenting the operable element in the operation interface
of the terminal according to the determined operation mode.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Nasiri et al. (“Nasiri”) US 2009/0303204 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
Kim et al. (“Kim”) US 2013/0111384 A1 May 2, 2013

Claims 1–5, 8–15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim.
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim and Nasiri.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed May 16, 2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
Oct. 26, 2018), the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”, mailed Oct. 17, 2017),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sept. 7, 2018) for their
respective details.

Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

4
ISSUE
Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issue:
1. Does Kim teach acquiring information about a space status change
of a terminal, including the direction of space status movement change,
which comprises a leftward movement change indicating that the terminal
moves laterally towards the left hand side of a user of a terminal or a
rightward movement change indicating that the terminal moves laterally
towards the right hand side of a user of the terminal?
2. Does the combination of Kim and Nasiri teach or suggest acquiring
information about a space status change of a terminal by determining a
shake frequency of the terminal?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable meaning in
their ordinary usage as such claim terms would be understood by one skilled
in the art by way of definitions and the written description. In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part of
a “fully integrated written instrument” consisting principally of a
specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason,
claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they
are a part.”. . . . [T]he specification “is always highly relevant to
the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted).
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

5
reference.” In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478–79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Anticipation of a
claim requires a finding that the claim at issue reads on a prior art reference.
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir.
1985)).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 8–15, 18, and 19
Independent claim 1 recites “acquiring information about a space
status change of a terminal by acquiring a direction of a space status
movement change.” The direction of the space status movement change
comprises a leftward movement change or a rightward
movement change, the leftward movement change indicates that
the terminal moves laterally towards the left hand side of a user
of the terminal . . . and the rightward movement change
indicates the terminal moves laterally towards the right hand
side of the user.

Independent claim 11 contains a limitation which is commensurate in scope.
Appellant argues that Kim teaches a technique of arranging icons
based on the tilt of a portable device, and does not teach a leftward
movement change of a device in that the terminal moves laterally towards
the left hand side of a user of the terminal, or a rightward movement change
in that the terminal moves laterally towards the right hand side of the user of
the terminal. Appeal Br. 19; Kim ¶ 9, Figs. 4A–4C.
The Examiner finds that Google Dictionary defines “laterally” as “at,
toward, or from the side,” and finds that Kim teaches such lateral movement
Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

6
in that Kim teaches a tilted state, which can be either a right side tilt (right
side is lower than the left side) or a left side tilt (left side lower than the right
side). Final Act. 23; Ans. 4; Kim ¶¶ 28, 42, 50, Fig. 4A–4C. The Examiner
characterizes such a tilt as movement of the device toward the user’s left
hand side (or right hand side, respectively). Ans. 4.
We do not agree with the Examiner that the tilt state disclosed in Kim
corresponds to the claimed lateral movement of the terminal towards the left
hand side, or the right hand side, of the user.
Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

7
Figures 4A–4C of Kim are reproduced below:

Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

8

Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

9

Figures 4A–4C of Kim illustrate touch screens in which the icons are
arranged lopsidedly according to embodiments of the invention. Kim ¶ 16.
Figures 4A(b), 4B(b), and 4C(b) illustrate a device in a tilted orientation.
Kim ¶ 50.
We agree with Appellant that the tilted state disclosed in Kim does not
move the (entire) terminal toward either the left hand side or the right hand
side of the user. Appeal Br. 21. The tilt illustrated in Kim Figure 4A shows
the left side of the terminal lowered and the right side of the terminal raised.
The rotational tilt illustrated in Kim Figures 4B and 4C can at most be
characterized as one corner of the terminal moving toward one side of the
user, while the opposite corner of the terminal is moving away from that side
Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

10
of the user. See Appeal Br. 22. In neither case does the terminal, as a whole,
move toward the left hand side or toward the right hand side of the user.
We therefore agree with Appellant that Kim does not teach detecting a
space status movement change of a terminal comprising either leftward
movement towards the left hand side of a user, or rightward movement
towards the right hand side of a user. We find that Kim does not teach all the
limitations of claims 1–5, 8–15, 18, and 19, and we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 102(a)(2) rejection.
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17
Independent claim 6 recites “acquiring information about a space
status change of a terminal by determining a shake frequency of the
terminal.” Independent claim 16 recites a limitation that is commensurate in
scope.
The Examiner finds that Nasiri teaches the claimed “shake frequency”
by evaluating Appellant’s proffered definition of “frequency,” i.e., “the rate
at which something occurs or is repeated over a particular period of time or
in a given sample.” Ans. 6; Appeal Br. 28. The Examiner emphasizes the “in
a given sample” portion of the definition and finds that the count of the
number of times the device is shaken in Nasiri (“the number of times the
device was shook”) corresponds to the definition of “frequency.” Appeal
Br. 28. The Examiner finds that Nasiri teaches a shake gesture, and teaches
that a “return gesture” could be implemented as “a shaking of the device
three times.” Ans. 6; Nasiri ¶¶ 72, 123.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the definition
“frequency.” Even assuming arguendo that one may disregard the portion of
the definition calling for calculating the number of times something occurs
Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

11
over a particular period of time, the Examiner’s preferred interpretation fails
to account for the word “rate,” which is defined as “a quantity, amount, or
degree of something measured per unit of something else.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rate (retrieved Sept. 3, 2020).
The portions of Nasiri cited by the Examiner do not teach a rate at which
shaking occurs or is repeated over a particular period of time. The portions
of Nasiri cited by the Examiner do not teach a quantity, amount, or degree of
shake gestures detected per unit of anything else, whether it be time or some
other quantity. We find that Nasiri does not teach determining a shake
frequency of a terminal, as these claims require.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 over Kim and Nasiri.

CONCLUSION
1. Kim does not teach acquiring information about a space status
change of a terminal, including the direction of space status movement
change, which comprises a leftward movement change indicating that the
terminal moves laterally towards the left hand side of a user of a terminal or
a rightward movement change indicating that the terminal moves laterally
towards the right hand side of a user of the terminal.
2. The combination of Kim and Nasiri does not teach or suggest
acquiring information about a space status change of a terminal by
determining a shake frequency of the terminal.

Appeal 2019-000675
Application 14/285,999

12
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8–15,
18, 19
102 Kim 1–5, 8–15,
18, 19
6, 7, 16, 17 103 Kim, Nasiri 6, 7, 16, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–19

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19 is reversed.

REVERSED