Bernaudin, Ingrid et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 16, 2020

13931592 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 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.
13/931,592 06/28/2013 Ingrid Bernaudin 000140-000500US 6112
58735 7590 01/16/2020
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
HO, RUAY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/16/2020 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
klhussain@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte INGRID BERNAUDIN, DAVID HSIA, DERRICK KOON,
ANIMESH DAS, and STEVE ZYSKIEWICZ
Appeal 2019-001237
Application 13/931,592
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, 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 and 4–21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies SuccessFactors, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 2, filed August 28, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”).
Appeal 2019-001237
Application 13/931,592

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns tile-based user interfaces. See
Specification, Abstract, filed June 28, 2013 (“Spec.”). Claims 1, 15, and 19
are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
displaying a plurality of tiles in a display area of an output
device of a computer, the plurality of tiles corresponding to a
plurality of applications executing on the computer different
from each other, a first tile at a first size presenting therein a
single UI of a first application executing on the computer
comprising a display of first information generated by the first
application without activating the first application;
receiving first user input directed to the first tile;
in response to the first user input, displaying in the display
area an animation of the first tile expanding from the first size to
a second size; and
presenting in the first tile at the second size the UI of the
first application comprising a display of second information
generated by the first application different from the first
information generated by the first application.

Appeal Br. 16.

Appeal 2019-001237
Application 13/931,592

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References
1, 4–12, 14–212 103 Tam,3 Paretti,4 MacDonald5
13 103 Tam, Paretti, MacDonald, Sirpal6
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites “displaying a plurality of tiles in a display area of an
output device of a computer, the plurality of tiles corresponding to a
plurality of applications executing on the computer.” Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the combination of
Tam, Paretti, and MacDonald teaches or suggests this limitation. See Appeal
Br. 9–11; see also Reply Brief 2–5, filed November 26, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appellant asserts that the Examiner relied on Tam for this limitation and
argues that the cited parts of Tam do not teach or suggest that a computer
displays tiles corresponding to applications that are executing on the
computer as required by the disputed limitation. See Appeal Br. 9–11; see
also Reply Br. 2–5.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner found that Tam teaches the
limitation at issue because Tam discloses displaying a grid of graphical tiles
that represent applications a user can download from an online application
store. See Final Act. 5 (citing Tam ¶ 5, Fig. 9); see also Examiner’s Answer
9, mailed October 5, 2018 (“Ans.”) (quoting Tam ¶ 5). Relying on this

2 The Final Office Action states that claims 1, 4–12, and 14-20 stand rejected
on this ground, but this rejection also addresses claim 21. See Final Office
Action 4–10, mailed February 16, 2018 (“Final Act.”).
3 Tam et al. (US 2015/0149329 A1; May 28, 2015).
4 Paretti et al. (US 2013/0155116 A1; June 20, 2013).
5 MacDonald et al. (US 2013/0229440 A1; September 5, 2013).
6 Sirpal et al. (US 2012/0081292 A1; April 5, 2012).
Appeal 2019-001237
Application 13/931,592

4
disclosure, the Examiner found that Tam “[a]pparently . . . discloses an
application of the online application store installed and executed in a client
device.” Ans. 9. The Examiner also found “it is well known in the art that
downloading and installation is part of a process of executing an application
stored in an online application store in a client device.” Ans. 9.
As argued by Appellant, even if Tam discloses displaying tiles that
represent applications a user can download from an online application store,
that does not show that the user has downloaded the applications, much less
that the user is executing the applications on the device that is displaying
tiles representing the applications. See Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 2–5. As
for the Examiner’s finding that it is well known that downloading and
installing an application is part of executing the application, the Examiner
has provided no support for this finding. See Ans. 9. Although a computer
may download and install applications before executing them, this sequence
of events does not establish that the computer is displaying tiles
corresponding to applications executing on the computer.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and its dependent claims. Because the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 15 and 19 suffer from similar flaws, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims and their respective
dependent claims.

Appeal 2019-001237
Application 13/931,592

5
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–12, 14–
21 103
Tam, Paretti,
MacDonald
1, 4–12,
14–21
13 103 Tam, Paretti, MacDonald, Sirpal 13
Overall
Outcome 1, 4–21

REVERSED