Ex Parte Barnes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12959072 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/959,072 12/02/2010
61947 7590 06/17/2016
Apple - Blank Rome
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
HOUSTON, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew R. Barnes
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Pl0115US1
(l 19-0455US1)
4345
EXAMINER
MA, TIZE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
mbrininger@blankrome.com
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW R. BARNES
Appeal2015-002069
Application 12/959,072
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002069
Application 12/959,072
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3-15, and 21-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention relates to driving a display from multiple graphical
outputs with different resolutions (see Spec. i-fi-132-34). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for driving a common display from two or more
clients executing on a computer system, comprising:
providing a first and second set of backing stores for
windows in the computer system;
enabling a first set of clients to draw first pixel information
to the first set of backing stores using a virtual coordinate system
that is independent of a resolution of the common display;
enabling a second set of clients to draw second pixel
information to the second set of backing stores using a non-
virtual coordinate system that is dependent on the resolution of
the common display;
converting the first pixel information into converted pixel
information that is dependent on, and scaled to, the resolution of
the common display; and
displaying both the converted pixel information and the
second pixel information simultaneously on the common
display, wherein the second pixel information is displayed
without scaling for resolution of the common display.
2
Appeal2015-002069
Application 12/959,072
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ciolac
Rohrabaugh
US 2003/0048275 Al Mar. 13, 2003
US 2007 /0288855 Al Dec. 13, 2007
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 3-15, and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ciolac and Rohrabaugh.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends:
Nowhere does Ciolac ever state that multiple virtual
displays can be displayed at the same time on a common display
device. (Ciolac does not even state that different virtual displays
can be selected or activated at the same time.)
Ciolac at [0017]-[0018] only describes partitioning a
single system frame buffer into multiple portions (one for each
virtual display), and that video controller hardware uses
information from these various portions to drive a physical
display device. Nothing here states that multiple virtual displays
can be displayed at the same time on a common display device.
Ciolac at [0016] and [0019] only describes partitioning a
single system frame buffer into multiple portions (one for each
virtual display), and that an event trigger may be used to
designate or select an active virtual display. Ciolac's entire
discussion of one virtual device being associated with one side
of a physical display and another virtual device being associated
3
Appeal2015-002069
Application 12/959,072
with another side of the physical display is wholly dispositive.
Nothing here states that multiple virtual displays can be
displayed at the same time on a common display device.
(App. Br. 9). Appellant further contends that Ciolac cannot disclose
simultaneously displaying the two virtual displays because Ciolac' s virtual
displays have different resolutions and "one of ordinary skill in the art would
unerringly understand that if different virtual displays with different
resolution settings were displayed at the same time, at least one of the virtual
displays would not, in general, be useable at all" (App. B. 12-13). We
disagree with Appellant.
Ciolac discloses a "multiple display configuration in a system with a
single display device" (Ciolac i-f 13). In one embodiment, Ciolac discloses:
[T]wo virtual displays (not shown) have been requested. To
provide hardware support for the two virtual displays, display
driver 124 partitions frame buffer 140 to include a first frame
buffer portion 142 and a second frame buffer portion 144. The
first frame buffer portion 142 is used to store video data
associated with a first virtual display and the second frame buffer
portion 144 is used to store video data associated with a second
virtual display.
(Ciolac i-f 16). Further, Ciolac discloses:
[A Jn event trigger is used to select the current virtual display ....
The even trigger may also include a mouse curser crossing an
edge of a screen of a current virtual display, indicating another
virtual display that exists in the direction that the curser has
crossed is to become active. For example, if a left portion of the
available desktop is assigned to the first virtual display and a
right portion of the available desktop is assigned to the second
virtual display, once the mouse curser crosses the right boundary
of the screen of the first virtual display, the second display
becomes active.
4
Appeal2015-002069
Application 12/959,072
(Ciolac if 19). We agree with the Examiner (see Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4-5)
that the portion of Ciolac quoted above teaches displaying two different sets
of pixel information "simultaneously on the common display," as recited in
claim 1. Appellant's argument that "[n!othing here states that multiple
virtual displays can be displayed at the same time on a common display
device" (App. Br. 9) is not persuasive because it does not specifically
explain why Ciolac' s disclosure of presenting first and second virtual
displays in respective left and right portions of an available desktop (Ciolac
if 19) fails to show the argued feature.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's further argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that two different virtual displays
with different resolutions cannot be made useable at the same time on the
same display (App. Br. 12-13), because (1) Appellant presents no evidence
to support this assertion, and (2) as the Examiner notes (see Ans. 5), claim 1
does not require multiple displays of pixel information be selected or
activated (or "useable" in Appellant's language (App. Br. 13)) at the same
time, only that that they be displayed simultaneously on the common
display. As mentioned above, Ciolac discloses left and right virtual displays
on the same desktop, which we find meets the claim 1 limitation of
displaying two different sets of pixel information "simultaneously on the
common display."
Although Appellant presents additional arguments in the Reply
Brief-namely, that the Examiner has failed to show Ciolac teaches "first
pixel information," "second pixel information," and a "non-virtual
coordinate system" for the second pixel information (Reply Br. 9-12}-
Appellant has not shown good cause as to why these arguments were not
5
Appeal2015-002069
Application 12/959,072
raised in the Appeal Brief See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) ("Any argument in
the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive
to an argument raised in the examiner's answer ... will not be considered by
the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.").
Accordingly, Appellant's new Reply Brief arguments are untimely and will
not be considered.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 3-15 and 21-25 not specifically argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-15, and 21-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-15, and
21-25 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6