Ex Parte Bansal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2017

12832642 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2017)

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.
12/832,642 07/08/2010 Ravi P. Bansal END920100069US1 4839
87354 7590
IBM Corp. (END/RCR)
c/o Rolnik Law Firm, P.C.
24 N. Main St.
Kingwood, TX 77339
EXAMINER
BADAWI, ANGIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2017 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):
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAVI P. BANSAL, RICK A. HAMILTON II,
ANDREW R. JONES, BRIAN M. O’CONNELL,
and KEITH R. WALKER
Appeal 2017-005169
Application 12/832,642
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and LARRY J.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 22, 23, 27, 28, 32, and 33. Claims 1—21, 24—26,
29—31, and 34—36 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-005169
Application 12/832,642
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention shares graphical data from a presenter’s
computer to other computers by selecting subsets of participants to view
selected data exclusively. See generally Abstract; Spec. 11. Claim 22 is
illustrative:
22. A computer implemented method for discriminating
shared media on a network, the method comprising:
a server receiving a selection from a presenter of at least
one first user to be in a first group of participants to participate
in a screen sharing session;
the server selecting at least one second user to be in a
second group of participants to participate in a screen sharing
session, wherein selecting the second group of participants is
based on tags of users in a user repository, each tag
corresponding to a job title and an organization name tag of the
corresponding user, and wherein the second group of participants
is a subset of the first group of participants, and wherein the
organization name tag is associated with a file to be shared;
the server, receiving from the presenter, a selection of a
first window selection, thereby selecting the first window for
sharing to at least the first group of participants;
the server, receiving from the presenter at a client remote
from the server, a selection of a second window selection by
clicking on an application window to be selected, wherein the
application window is a rectangular region having specific pixel
boundaries that are re-sizeable, thereby selecting the application
window as the second window for sharing only to the second
group of participants;
the server sharing the first window with at least the first
group of participants, wherein the sharing is selecting a device
authenticated as being used by one of the first group of
participants; and
the server sharing the second window with only the second
group based on selecting the second window and selecting the
second group, by transmitting to each participant of the second
group, content of the file, but not transmitting to a participant not
2
Appeal 2017-005169
Application 12/832,642
belonging to the first group the content of the file, thereby
excluding the first group from receiving the content of the file
for the second window.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 22, 27, 28, and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Feng (US 2004/0267625 Al; publ. Dec. 30,
2004), Katsurabayashi (US 6,308,199 Bl; iss. Oct. 23, 2001), Davidson (US
2008/0126953 Al; publ. May 29, 2008), Bar-El (US 2006/0232826 Al; publ.
Oct. 19, 2006), and Choi (US 2011/0109716 Al; publ. May 12, 2011).
Ans. 2-11.1
The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Feng, Katsurabayashi, Davidson, Bar-El, Choi,2 and
Smith (US 5,107,443; iss. Apr. 21, 1992). Ans. 12-14.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER FENG, KATSURABAYASHI,
DAVIDSON, BAR-EL, AND CHOI
The Examiner finds Feng’s server (1) receives a selection from a
presenter of at least one first user to be in a first group of participants to
participate in a screen sharing session, and (2) selects at least one second
user to be in a second participant group, where the server shares first and
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed
December 21, 2016 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed
February 13, 2017 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed February 14, 2017
(“Reply Br.”).
2 Although the Examiner omits Choi from this rejection, claims 23 and 33
nevertheless depend from independent claims 11, 17, and 32 whose rejection
was based partly on Choi. Therefore, we presume that the Examiner
intended to include Choi in this rejection, and deem any error associated
with this omission as harmless.
3
Appeal 2017-005169
Application 12/832,642
second windows with respective groups. Ans. 3^4. Although the Examiner
acknowledges Feng does not disclose (1) the second group of participants is
a subset of the first group, (2) sharing a first window by selecting a device
authenticated as being used by one of the first group of participants, and (3)
sharing the second window with only the second group, the Examiner cites
Katsurabayashi as teaching these features. Ans. 5—6. The Examiner also
cites (1) David for teaching receiving first and second selections, (2) Bar-El
for teaching the recited tag-based selection and device authentication, and
(3) Choi for receiving a window selection by clicking on a rectangular and
resizable application window. Ans. 6—10. In view of these collective
teachings, the Examiner concludes the claim would have been obvious.
Ans. 3—10.
Appellants argue Choi does not teach an application window, let alone
clicking on an application window to be selected as claimed. App.
Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 1—2. Appellants add that combining Katsurabayashi’s
hidden window functionality with Choi produces an unintended and
unwanted result, namely a blotted-out section shown in the “alternative”
version of Choi’s Figure 7 on page 12 of the Appeal Brief. App. Br. 12—13;
Reply Br. 2—3.
ISSUES
(1) Under § 103(a), has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 by
finding the cited references, including Choi and Katsurabayashi, collectively
would have taught or suggested a server receiving a selection of a second
window selection from a presenter at a remote client by clicking on a
rectangular and resizable application window to be selected, thus, selecting
4
Appeal 2017-005169
Application 12/832,642
the application window as the second window for sharing only to the second
group of participants?
(2) Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that, although the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 22 is based on five prior art references, the Examiner’s
reliance on only two of those references, namely Choi and Katsurabayashi,
is disputed with particularity. See App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 1—3.
Accordingly, we confine our discussion to those two references.
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner cites the functionality of Choi’s
Figure 4 for teaching receiving from a presenter, a selection of a window by
clicking on a rectangular and resizable application window to be selected,
thus selecting the application window for sharing to participants. Ans. 9—10.
Our emphasis underscores the key disputed aspect of the Examiner’s
findings in this regard, namely that Choi teaches selecting an application
window for sharing.
We see no error in this finding. Although paragraph 34 of Appellants’
Specification notes a privileged screen region may be a dynamic window
that, for example, may be an application window, the Specification does not
define the term “application window” unlike other terms whose definitions
leave no doubt as to their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 19, 21 (defining other
terms). Therefore, we construe the term “application window” with its plain
meaning. The term “window” is defined in the computer art as “[a]
5
Appeal 2017-005169
Application 12/832,642
rectangular viewing area on a computer monitor screen where data is
displayed.” The New Int’l Webster’s Pocket Computer Dictionary of
the English Language 184—85 (2005). Another computer dictionary
defines the term “window” similarly as “[a] rectangular area on a display
screen inside which a portion of a stored image or file can be displayed.”
John Daintith & Edmund Wright, The Facts on File Dictionary of
Computer Science 239 (Revised ed. 2006). See also IBM Dictionary of
Computing 745 (10th ed. 1994) (defining “window” in pertinent part as
“[a]n area of the screen with visible boundaries within which information is
displayed”); Douglas Downing et al., Barron’s Dictionary of Computer
& Internet Terms 529 (10th ed. 2009) (defining “window” in pertinent
part as “an area of the screen set aside for a special purpose”); McGraw-
Hill Dictionary of Computing & Communications 411 (2003) (defining
“window” as “[a] separate viewing area on a display screen that is
established by the computer software”).
Given these ordinary and customary meanings of “window” in the art,
we construe an “application window” as an area of a screen with visible
boundaries within which information is displayed, the area associated with
an application.
Given this construction, Choi at least suggests an “application
window.” As shown in Choi’s Figures 2 and 3, a partial region 115 of a
screen 114 can be selected and transmitted to another party’s terminal. Choi
142. To this end, the user (1) double-clicks over screen 114 to display a
region indicator 116, (2) positions and resizes the indicator to bound the
desired region, and then (3) clicks over the indicator to select the desired
region. Choi 145; Fig. 4. This selected region, bound by rectangular
6
Appeal 2017-005169
Application 12/832,642
indicator 116 in Choi’s Figure 4, at least suggests an “application window”
because it is an area of the screen with visible boundaries within which
information is displayed, and the area is at least associated with an
application that enables selecting and sharing the associated region.
Notably, the user clicks on this application window to select it. See Choi
145. So even if we were to accept Appellants’ characterization of Choi’s
indicator 116 as a “marquee tool” (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 1), the region
associated with this indicator is still an “application window” given the
scope and breadth of the term.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on Katsurabayashi.
As the Examiner explains, Katsurabayashi’s Figure 3 teaches window ID 3
can be shared with only participants in a second group, namely Participants
A and B, but not Participants C and D. Ans. 5, 15 (citing Katsurabayashi,
col. 8,11. 27—35). See also Katsurabayashi, col. 10,1. 45 — col. 11,1. 42
(describing an example of displaying a shared screen in Figures 9 to 11).
Given Katsurabayashi’s teaching of allowing only certain users to view
particular windows, we see no reason why this functionality could not be
used in connection with Choi’s data sharing technique as the Examiner
proposes. Among other things, this combination would enable only certain
users to view content selected via Choi’s indicator 116, but not others,
yielding a predictable result. In short, this enhancement uses prior art
elements predictably according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. SeeKSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We find unavailing Appellants’ contention that combining
Katsurabayashi’s functionality involving a hidden window with Choi
produces an unintended and unwanted result, namely a blotted-out section
7
Appeal 2017-005169
Application 12/832,642
shown in the “alternative” version of Choi’s Figure 7 on page 12 of the
Appeal Brief. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 2—3. Notably, there is no
persuasive evidence on this record proving that Choi’s Figure 7 would be
converted to an undisclosed “alternative” version of that figure apart from
mere attorney argument that has little probative value. See In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In any event, although window W3 is
hidden from view on the screens of Participants C and D in Katsurabayashi’s
Figure 11, the window is nonetheless visible to Participants A and B in
Figure 10. See Katsurabayashi, col. 10,1. 60 —col. 11,1. 42.
Therefore, Appellants’ theory that Choi’s Figure 7 would contain a
blotted-out section in the “alternative” version of that figure under the
Examiner’s proposed combination (App. Br. 12) is not only speculative and
unsubstantiated, it ignores the fact that Katsurabayashi’s screen content—
including window W3—remains intact for certain users as shown in Figure
10. So even assuming, without deciding, that the proposed combination
would somehow result in a hidden section corresponding to the selected
application window under the Examiner’s proposed combination, this hidden
section would appear only on the screens of those users designated to not
receive that content—not all users. This predictable result would not be
“unintended and unwanted” as Appellants assert (App. Br. 12), but rather
just the opposite: a result that enables only certain users to receive and view
selected application window-based content. The Examiner’s proposed
combination of the cited references is, therefore, supported by articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion.
8
Appeal 2017-005169
Application 12/832,642
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 22, and claims 27, 28, and 32 not argued separately with particularity.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 23
and 33. Ans. 12—14. Because this rejection is not argued separately or with
particularity, we are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the reasons
previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 22, 23, 27, 28, 32, and 33
under § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22, 23, 27, 28, 32,
and 33.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9