NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2020

14779010 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
14/779,010 09/21/2015 Liang Zhang 042933/468896 9352
10949 7590 02/27/2020
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
MOLINA, HUGO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2020 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIANG ZHANG
Appeal 2019-006441
Application 14/779,010
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JENNIFER S. BISK, 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 claims 1, 3, 5–8, 10, and 12–15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy.
Appeal Brief 2, filed February 25, 2019 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2019-006441
Application 14/779,010

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “selecting a user interface view for
displaying by an apparatus.” Specification ¶ 1, filed September 21, 2015
(Spec.). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving an indication of a lock signal at a first point in
time;
receiving an indication of an unlock signal at a second
point in time;
upon receiving the indication of the unlock signal,
determining a lock period based on the first point in time and the
second point in time, wherein the lock period comprises a time
period between the lock signal at the first point in time and the
unlock signal at the second point in time; and
in dependence on the determined lock period, selecting a
user interface view for displaying upon unlocking a device in an
instance in which the determined lock period is greater than a
pre-defined threshold value and selecting a second user interface
view for displaying upon unlocking the device in an instance in
which the determined lock period is less than the pre-defined
threshold value, wherein the unlocking is performed in response
to the received indication of the unlock signal.
Appeal Br. 32.

Appeal 2019-006441
Application 14/779,010

3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References
1, 8, 15 102 Kim3
3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13 103 Kim, Park4
7, 14 103 Kim, Park, Gamaley5
DISCUSSION
Section 102 Rejection
Claim 1 recites a method that
upon receiving the indication of the unlock signal, determin[es]
a lock period based on the first point in time and the second point
in time, wherein the lock period comprises a time period between
the lock signal at the first point in time and the unlock signal at
the second point in time; and
in dependence on the determined lock period, select[s] a user
interface view for displaying upon unlocking a device in an
instance in which the determined lock period is greater than a
pre-defined threshold value and select[s] a second user interface
view for displaying upon unlocking the device in an instance in
which the determined lock period is less than the pre-defined
threshold value, wherein the unlocking is performed in response
to the received indication of the unlock signal [the selecting
limitation].
Appeal Br. 32 (emphases added). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not
shown that Kim discloses the selecting limitation. See Appeal Br. 8–12.
Appellant asserts that this limitation requires selecting a user interface for

2 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5–8, 10, and
12–15 under § 101. Final Office Action 2–7, mailed October 5, 2018 (Final
Act.). The Examiner withdrew this rejection in the Examiner’s Answer.
Examiner’s Answer 46–47, mailed May 10, 2019 (Ans.).
3 Kim et al. (US 2011/0294467 A1; December 1, 2011).
4 Park et al. (US 2013/0093707 A1; April 18, 2013).
5 Gamaley et al. (US 2009/0241031 A1; September 24, 2009).
Appeal 2019-006441
Application 14/779,010

4
display “in response to the received indication of the unlock signal,”
whereas Kim discloses changing a “growing form of an image” displayed on
a mobile device while the device is locked. See Appeal Br. 8–10. Appellant
contends that Kim “is silent” about what the device displays after it receives
an “unlock function.” Appeal Br. 9–10 (emphasis omitted). Appellant also
argues that Kim cannot “determine the lock period . . . during the display
and progression of the” growing form of the image because the mobile
device has yet to receive the unlock signal. See Appeal Br. 10.
We agree with Appellant. Kim teaches placing a mobile device into a
“touch-lock” state during which the device displays a so-called “growing
form of an image” to show how long the device has been in the touch-lock
state. See Kim ¶¶ 76–78. For example, Kim teaches displaying an image of a
tree and changing the image from one form of the tree to another at specified
times so that the tree appears to grow as time passes while the device is in
the touch-lock state. See Kim ¶¶ 76–78, Fig. 6. Kim also teaches releasing
the touch-lock state. See Kim ¶¶ 76–78. The Examiner found that the
process of entering the touch-lock state, displaying a growing form of an
image while in this state, and exiting the touch-lock state discloses the
disputed limitation. See Final Office Action 8–9, mailed October 5, 2018
(citing Kim ¶¶ 51, 78, Fig. 6); Examiner’s Answer 17–21, mailed May 10,
2019 (citing Kim ¶¶ 76–78, Fig. 6).
As argued by Appellant, Kim does not teach changing the growing
form of an image from one form of the image to another at certain times “in
response to the received indication of the unlock signal” as required by the
selecting limitation. Kim teaches that once the mobile device receives an
unlock signal, the mobile device stops displaying the growing form of the
Appeal 2019-006441
Application 14/779,010

5
image. See, e.g., Kim ¶¶ 77 (“When an information reception event occurs
during the display of the growing form of an image on the display unit 141,
the touch-lock idle screen processing unit 165 stops displaying it . . . .”), 89
(disclosing that “when an input signal for releasing the touch-lock state
occurs, the controller 160 returns to and proceeds with” displaying an idle
screen or performing a user function), Fig. 7 (showing a flow chart of an
exemplary touch-lock operating method). And although Kim teaches
displaying a new image (for example, an idle screen or a screen for a user
function) after receiving the unlock signal, see Kim ¶¶ 51, 89, Fig. 7, Kim
does not disclose doing so by comparing a determined lock period to a
threshold as required by the disputed limitation. We thus agree with
Appellant that the Examiner erred.
On this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claim 1. Because the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent
claims 8 and 15 suffers from the same deficiency, we also do not sustain this
rejection.
Section 103 Rejections
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3, 5–7,
10, and 12–14 do not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection of their
respective independent claims. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of these claims.

Appeal 2019-006441
Application 14/779,010

6
CONCLUSION
This table summarizes our decision for claims 1, 3, 5–8, 10, and 12–
15, the claims before us on appeal:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 15 102 Kim 1, 8, 15
3, 5, 6, 10,
12, 13 103 Kim, Park
3, 5, 6, 10,
12, 13
7, 14 103 Kim, Park, Gamaley 7, 14
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5–8,
10, 12–15

REVERSED