Ex Parte Tormey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 15, 2013

11281830 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DANIEL TORMEY, JOE BOLDING, and
RONALD GILBERT, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2010-007046 1
Application 11/281,830
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, LARRY J. HUME, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-20, and 23-27. Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 21-
22 have previously been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company,
L.P. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2010-007046
Application 11/281,830

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to an automatic and persistent x-
window control for multiple applications and multiple windows per
application. In one embodiment, a text file is maintained that includes
placement, size, and other attribute information (collectively “window
configuration information”) associated with each of a group of windows on a
per-window basis. Before creating a window, the text file containing the
configuration information for the window being created (which is identified
by name) is examined, and the window configuration is retrieved. Spec. p.
1, Title; and ¶ [0010].
Exemplary Claims
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention
which is reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. A computer system for controlling a presentation
of windows on a computer display, the computer system
comprising:
display hardware under the control of an operating
system;
an application whose display window is operable to be
controlled by window configuration software, the application

2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Nov. 11, 2009); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 25, 2010); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 30, 2009); Final Office Action (“FOA,”
mailed Jul. 9, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Nov. 17, 2005).
Appeal 2010-007046
Application 11/281,830

3
having a plurality of text files associated therewith, each text
file comprising at least one data string, wherein each data string
is associated with a window and comprises window
configuration information for the window with which it is
associated; and
instructions in the window configuration software for
prompting the user to select one of the plurality of text files
responsive to opening of the application, for accessing the
selected text file responsive to user selection of one of the
plurality of text files, for obtaining from the selected text file
window configuration information for a window, and for
causing the window to be displayed on the display hardware in
accordance with the window configuration.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following non-patent literature prior art
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Neil. J. Rubenking, “Reload Programs Automatically,” First Published in
PC Magazine, U.S. Edition, March 23, 1999, hereinafter “Rubenking”.
Wikipedia, “X Window System”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/x_window_
system, as evidenced by Internet Archive www.archive.org, February 24,
2004, http://web.archive.org/web/20040224042952/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/x_window_system (hereinafter “Wikipedia”).
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-20, and 23-24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rubenking. Ans. 3.
2. Claims 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rubenking in view of Wikipedia. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2010-007046
Application 11/281,830

4
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 1-2) that the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Rubenking is
in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Rubenking discloses
Appellants’ claimed computer system for controlling a
presentation of windows on a computer display that includes,
inter alia, “an application whose display window is operable to
be controlled by window configuration software,” as recited in
independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions with respect to claim 1, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Arguments. However,
we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1
for emphasis as follows.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Rubenking discloses
Appellants’ claimed computer system for controlling a presentation of
windows on a computer display that includes, inter alia, “an application
whose display window is operable to be controlled by window configuration
software,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4-5, 10-12.
Appellants contend that the Reloader program disclosed in Rubenking
cannot be both an application and window configuration software. App.
Appeal 2010-007046
Application 11/281,830

5
Br. 12; Reply Br. 1-2. We disagree with Appellants and concur with the
Examiner that “the instant claim language does not preclude an application
from also being windows configuration software . . . [such that Appellants’]
argument is not persuasive.” Ans. 11.
In particular, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that:
Rubenking clearly teaches that Reloader is a program in the
Windows OS and further teaches that Reloader controls the
window layout of programs specified in Windows OS. Further
Rubenking teaches that Reloader can save the layout of all
programs with visible windows that are currently running
(Ruben king page 2 paragraph 12: “The programs listed in the
Options dialog fall into three categories: programs with visible
windows that are currently running”). Clearly, Reloader is a
running program with a visible window when a user is
interacting with it. Therefore, Rubenking clearly teaches that
Reloader is a[n] operable to control its own display window . . .
[Appellants’] argument is not persuasive.
Ans. 12. Appellants have not provided any evidence to rebut the Examiner’s
characterization of Rubenking. Appellants’ assertions amount to
unsupported attorney argument, and we therefore give them little weight.
See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re
Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139 – 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Consequently, we do not
find error in the Examiner’s characterization of Rubenking’s disclosure and
resulting claim construction.
Further, Appellants contend that “[t]he Reloader software of
Rubenking only acts as the windows configuration software . . . [and]
certainly cannot act as both the windows configuration software and
application as required by claim 1 . Rubenking fails to teach or suggest an
Appeal 2010-007046
Application 11/281,830

6
application separate from Reloader (the windows configuration software).”
Reply. Br. 2 (emphasis ours).
We disagree. While the Examiner’s position, supra, is unrebutted by
any evidentiary record before us, our independent review of Rubenking
contradicts Appellants’ contentions, and reveals that Rubenking explicitly
discloses multiple applications running on the system (e.g., a personal
computer using the Windows® OS), the display windows all being
controlled by Reloader. See e.g., Rubenking at p. 1, ll. 1-3; p. 2, ll. 7-11
(“Working With Layouts”); and p. 2, ll. 26-27 (“Tasks for Reloader”).
Thus, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in the
characterization of the Reloader application of Rubenking or in the
anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Based upon essentially the same findings of fact by the Examiner with
respect to claim 1 (supra), and in the absence of any substantive separate
arguments by Appellants (see App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2), we sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 8 and 17, which
recite the disputed limitation in commensurate form. We also sustain the
anticipation rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 9-12, 15-16, 18-20, and 23-
24 that depend therefrom.
For the same reason, i.e., the Examiner’s findings of fact, cited supra,
and the lack of separate, substantive arguments against the unpatentability
rejection of claims 25-27 (see App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2), we also sustain the
rejection of claims 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Rubenking and Wikipedia.
Appeal 2010-007046
Application 11/281,830

7
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to the anticipation
rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-20, and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Rubenking, and the rejection is sustained.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to the unpatentability
rejection of claims 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rubenking in view
of Wikipedia, and the rejection is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-20, and
23-27 is affirmed.
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) (2011).
AFFIRMED

tj