Ex parte Conrad et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 1998

08075278 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 11, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte THOMAS J. CONRAD
and ELIZABETH A. R. MOLLER
_____________
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,2781
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, LEE and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-21, 23, 25-27 and 40-57, all the
claims pending in the application.
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
2
The invention pertains to apparatus for organizing windows on a computer display screen.
Claims 1 and 40 are illustrative and read as follows:
1. An apparatus for organizing a graphic workspace on a computer including a display having a
graphic workspace, comprising:
memory to store a plurality of objects, wherein objects comprise processing units which occupy
a window on the display when opened;
first window management logic, coupled with the display, that manages and displays a plurality
of windows within a window region of the graphic workspace, wherein one or more windows in the
plurality of windows may overlap and obscure other windows in the plurality of windows within the
window region;
second window management logic, coupled with the display and the first window management
logic, that provides a control region within the graphic workspace, and an identifier within the control
region corresponding to a particular window, and is responsive to user input indicating selection of the
identifier within the control region for displaying the particular window in the window region; and
logic that removes the particualr [sic, particular] window from the window region in response to
selection of another window.
40. An apparatus for organizing a graphic workspace on a computer including a display having
a graphic workspace, comprising:
memory to store a plurality of objects, wherein objects comprise processing units which occupy
a window on the display when opened;
first window management logic, coupled with the display, that manages and displays a plurality
of windows within a window region of the graphic workspace, wherein one or more windows in the
plurality of windows may overlap and obscure other windows in the plurality of windows within the
window region;
second window management logic, coupled with the display and the first window management
logic, that provides a control region within the graphic workspace, and an identifier within the control
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
3
region corresponding to a particular window, and is responsive to user input indicating selection of the
identifier within the control region for displaying the particular window in the window region; and
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
4
logic that removes the particular window from the window region in response to completion of
a drag operation within the particular window, the drag operation comprising associating an object with
a cursor.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Bronson 5,305,435 Apr. 19, 1994
(filed May 7, 1993)
Microsoft Windows, Version 3.1, copyright 1985-1992 Microsoft Corp.
Claims 40-45, 48-50 and 53-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Bronson.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16-18, 21, 23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bronson.
Claims 14, 15, 19, 20, 46, 47, 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bronson and Microsoft Windows.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard to the propriety of these
rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 14) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 18)
and the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 17).
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants disclose a windows management display system. In one method of windows
management performed by the system, a user can open a window, and then close it by clicking on a
mouse so as to cause another window to appear on the display device.
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
This requirement is specifically recited in independent claim 40. Claims 41-45 each depend from claim 40. 2
5
In Figures 6A-6C, appellants disclose a further window management method. In that method,
a user executes a drag operation from object 600 along path 601 into the drawer window 602. The
user then moves the cursor along path 603 over identifier 604. By pausing over identifier 604, a
temporary window 605 is opened over the identifier as illustrated in Figure 6B. The user then
completes the drag operation along path 606 to place the object within the temporary window 605 as
shown in Figure 6C. At that time, the desk drawer D2 snaps shut. That is, window 602 is removed
from the window region of the display. All temporary windows except window 605 are removed.
The Rejection of Claims 40-45 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Bronson
At page 11 of their brief, appellants assert that the above claims require “logic that removes the
particular window from the window region in response to completion of a drag operation within the
particular window, the drag operation comprising associating an object with a cursor”, whereas
Bronson teaches removal of a window by dragging the window off of the screen. It is argued that2
Bronson does not remove a window “…in response to completion of a drag operation within a
window.”
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
6
At page 3 of the answer, the examiner does not directly respond to appellants’ argument but, in
discussing claims 40 and 41, makes reference to portions of Bronson’s disclosure which by implication
meet the limitations of the claims.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 40-45. Anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). Appellants are correct that
Bronson does not remove a window in response to completion of a drag operation within a window as
required by these claims. At the completion of Bronson’s drag operation, the window is already
removed and, thus, cannot be removed in response to completion of a drag operation. Furthermore,
Bronson does not disclose the requirement of “…completion of a drag operation within the particular
window”. For example, in Figure 2 of the reference, when the particular window 22’ is dragged off of
screen 10, it cannot be said that there is a completion of the drag operation within particular window
22’ or within any other window. Bronson’s drag operation is simply across a screen and not within a
window.
The Rejection of Claims 46-57
under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 over Bronson
Because independent claim 48 includes the same requirement as claim 40, that requirement
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
7
being logic that removes a particular window from the window region in response to completion of a
drag operation within the particular window, and dependent claims 46, 47 and 49-57 depend either
from claim 40 or claim 48, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 48 or any of these dependent
claims.
The Rejection of Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16-18,
21, 23 and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bronson
Appellants assert that these claims are allowable over Bronson because the method of
removing a window manually by “fast tab” (double-clicking) as taught by Bronson is entirely different
from removing a particular window from a window region in response to selection of another window.
It is argued that there is no suggestion or teaching in the prior art to modify Bronson in the manner
suggested by the examiner and that the modification of the examiner is “pure hindsight”.
We will sustain the rejection of these claims. The modification of Bronson which appellants
contend is necessary to render their claims unpatentable and which they argue against as not suggested
by the prior art is not essential to the rejection. No modification of Bronson’s method of removing a
window manually by “fast tab” is necessary because the reference specifically discloses that an active
window may be automatically displaced by opening another window. See SUMMARY OF THE
INVENTION, column 4, lines 43-53. As by way of example, the displaced window would appear as
a window 22’ illustrated in Figure 3 with the window tab along the screen edge, and the opened
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
8
window would appear on the central screen 20.
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
9
Appellants suggest that claims 16-18, 21, 23 and 25-27 are allowable because they require
application windows for applications programs and enclosure windows for icons. However, these
kinds of windows are disclosed by Bronson. For example, see column 5, lines 42 and 43, for a
reference to application programs in windows, and column 1, lines 46-53, for a discussion of icons.
The Rejection of Claims 14, 15, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as Unpatentable over Bronson and Microsoft Windows
With respect to dependent claims 14, 15, 19 and 20 it is argued that the invention will
automatically remove tool palette and control panel windows in response to the selection of another
window. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed
invention. The above claims do not require removal of tool palette and control panel windows. It is
only required that the plurality of windows include such windows. However, even if there were such a
requirement, the rejection of these claims would be sustained. As noted above, Bronson has a general
teaching that an active window may be automatically displaced by opening another window. This
suggests that any window can be removed for another. Appellants’ contention that it is counterintuitive
to close a tool palette or control window upon selection of another window because the user will
typically want to continue using the window after selecting another window is not supported by any
evidence and is unpersuasive. Furthermore, even assuming the contention to be true, the fact that
ordinarily a screen operator would have preferred to preserve tool palette and control panel windows
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
10
when selecting another window does not establish that automatic removal of such windows would have
been unobvious. The result of removing such windows, the opening of needed space on a display
screen, would have been expected and obvious. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 82
(CCPA 1975).
Summary
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 40-45, 48-50 and 53-57 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bronson is reversed.
b) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 46, 47, 51 and 52 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Bronson in view of Microsoft Windows is reversed.
c) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16-18, 21, 23 and
25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bronson is affirmed.
d) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 14, 15, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Bronson in view of Microsoft Windows is affirmed.
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
JAMESON LEE ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
12
KEITH G. ASKOFF
BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR
and ZAFMAN
12400 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD,
7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025