Ex Parte DeBellis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 10, 2012

10846882 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CRAIG MICHAEL DEBELLIS and
WILLIAM GABRIEL PAGAN
___________

Appeal 2009-014816
Application 10/846,882
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014816
Application 10/846,882

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 12-15, 18-21, 24, 25, and 28-38. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A concurrent selection apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
at least one stroke module comprising executable code stored
on a storage device, executed by a processor and configured to receive
a first multi-selection stroke from a user for a first window module of
a plurality of window modules and direct a selection directive to the
first window module and a null directive to each other window
module of the plurality of window modules responsive to the first
multi-selection stroke and receive a second multi -selection stroke
from the user for a second window module and direct the selection
directive to the second window module and the null directive to each
other window module responsive to the second multi-selection stroke;
the plurality of window modules each comprising executable
code stored on the storage device and executed by the processor and
configured to enter a selected state responsive to the selection
directive, to enter a deselected state responsive to a deselection
directive, and to maintain an existing state responsive to the null
directive, wherein the first and second window modules enter the
selected state response to the selection directives and each window
Appeal 2009-014816
Application 10/846,882

3
module in the selected state concurrently receives a user command as
though directed to each window module individually and
communicates the user command to a server, wherein each window
module is in communication with and controls a distinct server; and
at least one listener module comprising executable code stored
on the storage device, executed by the processor and in
communication with at least one window module of the plurality of
window modules and configured to receive the user command and
communicate the user command to the server of each window module
that is in the selected state.

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 12-15, 18-21, 24, 25, and
28-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gelsinger (US
5,892,511, Apr. 6, 1999) in view of Bloomfield (US 2003/0063119 A1, Apr.
3, 2003).1

Issues
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
independent claims because: neither Gelsinger nor Bloomfield teach the
claim element “communicate the user command to the server of each
window module that is in the selected state.” (App. Br. 29, 30). Appellants
argue Gelsinger provides a mechanism for selecting one window to receive a
command and does not select multiple windows to concurrently

1 In the event there is further prosecution in this case, we bring to the
Examiner’s attention that claim 4 has improper dependency in that it is
dependent on cancelled claim 3.
Appeal 2009-014816
Application 10/846,882

4
communicate a command to multiple servers as required by the claim. (App.
Br. 29). Further, Appellants argue that Bloomfield does not teach
communicating the user command to the server of each window module that
is in the selected state. (App. Br. 30) Thus, Appellants’ arguments present us
with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Gelsinger and Bloomfield teach or suggest the limitations of the independent
claims reciting first and second windows concurrently receiving user
commands and communicating the user commands to the server of each
window module that is in the selected state or similar recitations?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has erred.
Appellants contend that neither Gelsinger nor Bloomfield teaches or
suggests the claim element “communicate the user command to the server of
each window module that is in the selected state.” (App. Br. 29, 30). We
find that the Examiner has agreed with Appellants that Gelsinger does not
teach that each window is in communication with and controls a server and
communicates the user command to the server of each window module that
is in the selected state. (Ans. 23-24). The Examiner has alleged that
Bloomfield teaches this claim limitation. (Id.). We agree with the Examiner
with respect to the finding that Bloomfield teaches multiple windows
presented to the user wherein each window corresponds to a different server.
(Id.). Bloomfield teaches a web portal in which a variety of information
from different sources, i.e. servers, is displayed on a web page to a user.
Appeal 2009-014816
Application 10/846,882

5
(Bloomfield ¶¶0027-0028). The Examiner further alleges that Bloomfield
teaches that a user generated command is sent to multiple windows by the
user of the client device changing the window attributes of the
application-output windows by entering an input event that is detected by the
client agent and then communicated to the server agent. (Ans. 24). We do
not agree with the Examiner that a user changing the window attributes of
the application-output windows and then sending that information to the
agent server is equivalent to Appellants’ claim limitation of “communicate
the user command to the server of each window module in the selected
state.” We find in Bloomfield, that when a user moves or resizes an
application-output window, this command is sent to a single server for the
particular application-output window. (See Bloomfield ¶0041). We agree
with Appellants that the user commands are only communicated to a single
server, rather than one command going to multiple servers. Therefore, the
combination of the references does not teach a first and second window in a
selected state where the user command is sent to the server for each window
module that is in the selected state as required by the claim language.
Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Independent claims 8, 9, 15, 25, and 30 recite similar claim limitations and
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth
above. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 12-15, 18-21, 24, 25, and 28-38.

Appeal 2009-014816
Application 10/846,882

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 12-15, 18-21, 24, 25
and 28-38 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc