Ex Parte Czerwinski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13069015 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/069,015 03/22/2011
22801 7590 11/02/2016
LEE & HA YES, PLLC
601 W. RIVERSIDE A VENUE
SUITE 1400
SPOKANE, WA 99201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mary Czerwinski
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.
MS1-3950USC1 9330
EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
lhptoms@leehayes.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARY P. CZERWINSKI, GREGORY SMITH,
BRIAN R. MEYERS, PATRICK MARKUS BAUDISCH,
GEORGE G. ROBERTSON, and DANIEL C. ROBBINS
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 4--7, and 11-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns "computer software, and in
particular, to a system and method for managing the control and display of
software application windows in a graphical user environment." Spec. 1: 16-
18. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for managing at least two software applications
in a computer system including a display, wherein the at least
two software applications are represented as graphical windows
in a first portion of the display, the method comprising:
obtaining an indication to organize a first graphic control
corresponding to a first software application of the at least two
software applications and a second graphic control
corresponding to a second software application of the at least two
software applications;
displaying the first and second graphic controls as a group
within a second portion of the display, the group being
represented in a collapsed manner;
receiving an indication of selection of the group
represented in the collapsed manner; and
in response to receiving the indication of the selection of
the group represented in the collapsed manner, expanding the
group to display the first graphic control and the second graphic
control.
App. Br. 38.
2
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
REJECTION 1
Claims 1, 4--7, and 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bronson2. See Final Act. 2-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments and the evidence of record, and, with the exceptions of claims 18
and 19, we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. To the extent
consistent with the analysis below, we adopt the Examiner's findings and
reasoning set forth in the appealed action and the Examiner's Answer. We
address Appellants' arguments in tum. Appellants have waived arguments
Appellants failed to raise or properly develop in Appellants' briefing. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.41(b)(2).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 11-17, and 20
The "Obtaining" Limitation
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that Bronson
discloses "obtaining an indication to organize a first graphic control
corresponding to a first software application of the at least two software
applications and a second graphic control corresponding to a second
software application of the at least two software applications" as recited in
claim 1. See App. Br. 9-10. Appellants argue the cited portions of Bronson
1 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sciammarella et al. (US 2002/0033848
Al; published Mar. 21, 2002). See Ans. 2; Final Act. 9-16. Accordingly,
there is no rejection of claims 2, 3, and 8-10 before us on appeal.
2 Bronson (US 5,305,435; issued Apr. 19, 1994).
3
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
"merely describe[] a central screen area including several windows, with one
window for an application program ABC, another window for an application
program XYZ," the window for the XYZ program "also contain[ing] a
double-star icon which represents the application program XYZ." Id. at 9.
We are unpersuaded of error because Bronson's disclosure of a
display that organizes main window tab 3 8 and secondary window tabs 81-
85 together implicitly satisfies the "obtaining" limitation of claim 1. See
Bronson Figs. 1, 3-5, 7-10. Specifically, Bronson discloses a display of a
workstation desktop including an application program ABC 22 that has a
group of window interfaces labeled P 1-P5 (alternatively referenced by item
numbers 61---65), which themselves may be application programs. See Ans.
3; Final Act. 3; Bronson Fig. 1, col. 5, 11. 58---60 ("The windows 61---65 are
generally data files, but may be application programs as well." (emphasis
omitted)). Bronson further discloses a display that organizes a main window
tab 38 (associated with application program ABC 22) and secondary
window tabs 81-85 (associated with window interfaces 61-65) together.
See Bronson Figs. 3-5, 7-10 (each showing window tabs 38 and 81-85
associated with application program ABC 22 and window interfaces 61---65);
see also Final Act. 3; Ans. 3-7.
Because each of Bronson's main window tab 38 and secondary
window tabs 81-85 may correspond to and control a particular application
program, any two of these window tabs would satisfy "a first graphic control
corresponding to a first software application ... and a second graphic
control corresponding to a second software application" as claimed. See
Bronson Figs. 3-5; col. 5, 11. 58---60; col. 7, 11. 23-34, 36-38. This
interpretation is consistent with Appellants' written description, which
4
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
discloses organizing graphic controls 118 and 120, which correspond to
instantiated programs, to form group 126. See Spec. 9:29--10:2, 10:20-23;
Figs. 2A-2B, items 118, 120, 126.
Moreover, the fact that Bronson's display organizes main window tab
38 and window tabs 81-85 together implies that beforehand, Bronson's
computer system would have obtained instructions to execute such a display
(i.e., "obtaining an indication to organize"). See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,
826 (CCPA 1968) ("[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is
proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom."); MPEP § 2112 ("The express, implicit, and
inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the
rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103."). This is also consistent
with Appellants' written description, which discloses that "[a Jn indication to
group control tiles may be obtained in a variety of ways," but does not
clearly define "obtaining an indication to organize" or limit this phrase to a
particular embodiment. Spec. 10:23-11 :7 (disclosing that in some
exemplary embodiments, a user can perform the "indication"), 12:21-25
(disclosing that in an alternative embodiment, "the group controls 134 can
be manipulated in a manner such that the graphical windows of the group
may be automatically arranged into one of a number of pre-defined layouts
such as cascading, tiled, single window centralized"). For these reasons, we
are unpersuaded the Examiner erred regarding the "obtaining" limitation.
5
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
The "Displaying" Limitation
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that Bronson
discloses "displaying the first and second graphic controls as a group within
a second portion of the display, the group being represented in a collapsed
manner," as recited in claim 1. Appellants argue Bronson does not disclose
this limitation because
secondary window tabs 81-85 of the application program ABC
(3 8) . . . are merely . . . associated with different window
interfaces 61-65 within this single application program ABC
(3 8), rather than being associated with different application
programs, such as application program ABC (38), application
program XYZ (24), [and] document AAA (42).
App. Br. 11.
We are unpersuaded of error. As an initial matter, we disagree with
Appellants' characterization of Bronson because Bronson's secondary
window tabs 81-85 may be associated with different application programs.
See discussion supra regarding the "obtaining" limitation; Bronson col. 5, 11.
58---60; Fig. 3, items 22, 38, 61---65, 81-85. Moreover, contrary to
Appellants' arguments, Bronson discloses the "displaying" limitation by
disclosing a display state in which main window tab 3 8 is located on the left
edge of the screen, but secondary window tabs 81-85 are located off the
screen. See Bronson Figs. 7-10. Despite their different locations, we note
that window tabs 3 8 and 81-85 are still displayed "as a group" because they
are adjacent to one another and the selection or dragging of window tab 38
to the right can cause both window tab 3 8 and window tabs 81-85 to move
in unison and appear on the display screen. See Bronson col. 7, 11. 24--28.
Further, this display state discloses "the group being represented in a
collapsed manner," as evidenced by a comparison to an alternate display
6
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
state of Bronson, in which both main window tab 3 8 and secondary window
tabs 81-85 are grouped together on the screen. Compare Bronson Figs. 7-
10, with Bronson Figs. 3-5.
Our analysis is consistent with Appellants' written description, which
does not clearly limit the disputed claim limitation and, in fact, discloses an
example embodiment that collapses a group of control tiles in a manner akin
to the aforementioned display states of Bronson. Compare Fig. 4 (showing
expanded view including a display of control tiles 118 and 120), with Fig. 5,
(showing collapsed view of control tiles 118 and 120 by displaying only
control tile group 126 and group control tile 128); Spec. 13 :7-9 ("The
transition of the display of the control tile group 126 from displaying a
portion of the control tiles to solely displaying the group control tile 128 will
be referred to as collapsing the control tile group."). For these reasons, we
are unpersuaded the Examiner erred regarding the "displaying" limitation.
The "Receiving" and "Expanding" Limitations
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that Bronson
discloses "receiving an indication of selection of the group represented in the
collapsed manner; and in response to receiving the indication of the selection
of the group represented in the collapsed manner, expanding the group to
display the first graphic control and the second graphic control" as recited in
claim 1. See App. Br. 11-12. Appellants assert the cited portions of
Bronson do not disclose these limitations but instead "merely describe
pulling a window of an application program back onto a screen area or a
viewing area by selecting an individual secondary window tab or a main
7
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
window tab of the application program." See id. (citing Bronson col. 7, 11.
29--33).
We are unpersuaded of error. Bronson discloses the "receiving" and
"expanding" limitations as main window tab 3 8 ("the group represented in
the collapsed manner") is used ("receiving an indication of selection of') to
pull or drag, from off the screen back onto the screen ("expanding the group
to display"), secondary window tabs 81-85 ("the first graphic control and
the second graphic control"). See Bronson Figs. 3-5, 7-10; col. 7, 11. 24--
35). Further, the Examiner found, and Appellants fail to address or rebut,
see App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 2-5, that as an alternative to dragging or
pulling the window onto the screen, Bronson also discloses the "receiving"
and "expanding" limitations by popping a window on the screen edge back
onto the screen by double clicking on the main window tab. See Final Act. 3
(citing Bronson col. 6, lines 47-57); Bronson col. 7, 11. 17-19, 56---66. Our
analysis is consistent with Appellants' written description, which merely
offers examples of, and does not clearly define or limit, the "receiving" and
"expanding" limitations beyond the claim language. See Spec. 14:4--12.
Conclusion
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as the rejections of independent claims 7 and 14 and
dependent claims 4, 5, 11-13, 15-17, and 20, which were not argued
separately with particularity beyond the arguments advanced for claim 1.
See App. Br. 12-18; Reply Br. 2---6.
8
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
Claim 6
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that Bronson
discloses "generating a preview of the first and second graphical windows
corresponding to the first and second software applications in the first
portion of the display," as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 18-19, 39-40.
Appellants argue the cited portions of Bronson are silent as to this limitation
and instead "merely describe determining a location of a window tab along
screen edges and automatically returning a window to its original position on
the screen or its off-screen configuration when a 'Fast Restore' option is
used." Id. at 18-19.
We are unpersuaded of error. Appellants' written description
provides examples of "a preview" but does not clearly define or limit the
term. For example, the written description discloses that "[a]lthough the
preview feature was described with relation to a thumbnail image of a
collapsed group, the preview is not limited to collapsed groups or thumbnail
representations." Spec. 16: 1-2. Therefore, contrary to Appellants'
arguments, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a "preview" includes
Bronson's window tabs 38 and 81-85, which can be represented by icons
that provide an indication of their corresponding windows. See Final Act. 4
(citing Bronson col. 7, 11. 12-17); Bronson Fig. 3 (items 81-85), col. 4, 11.
37--40. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
Claims 18 and 19
Appellants contend Bronson does not disclose "toggling a first group
of software applications with a second group of software applications
between a minimized state and a restored state," as recited in claim 18. App.
9
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
Br. 19--20, 44. Appellants argue the cited portions of Bronson do not
disclose this limitation and instead "merely describe selecting a window tab
or moving the window tab to a screen area for displaying a window
associated with the window tab." See id. at 19 (citing Bronson Fig. 12).
We are persuaded of error. Claim 18 recites "executing a single user
action ... [that] comprises toggling a first group of software applications
with a second group of software applications." App. Br. 44 (emphasis
added); see also Spec. 12:28-30 (disclosing that toggling "allows a single
user action to accomplish the task of maximizing, minimizing, and restoring
many individual windows simultaneously, which would otherwise be
possible with a long sequence of individual user actions."). The Examiner
found that Bronson discloses "toggling" by allowing the user to transition
back and forth between a collapsed window display as shown in Figure 3
and an expanded window display as shown in Figure 6. See Ans. 7 (citing
Bronson Figs. 3, 6); Final Act. 8 (citing Bronson Figs. 4---6, 8-10). But the
Examiner has not shown that Bronson's transitioning between windows can
collapse one window and expand another window in a "single user action."
See id.; Final Act. 8 (citing Bronson Figs. 4--6, 8-10). To the contrary, it
appears as though Bronson's device requires at least two user actions:
collapsing a first window and then expanding a second window. See
Bronson Figs. 3-6; col. 6, 1. 23---col. 7, 1. 66.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 18 and the
rejection of dependent claim 19, which recites a similar limitation. See App.
Br. 45.
10
Appeal2015-007154
Application 13/069,015
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4--7, 11-17, and 20 is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 18 and 19 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
11