Ex Parte Firestone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

14231860 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/231,860 04/01/2014 Steve M. Firestone
141563 7590 08/23/2018
MHKKG (CA Technologies)
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
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.
US20140346US1/7100-05900 1740
EXAMINER
PARCHER, DANIEL W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVE M. FIRESTONE, STEVEN L. GREENSPAN,
JUDITH M. BROWN, and ROBERT L. BIDDLE
Appeal 2018-002348
Application 14/231,860
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVINE. BRANCH and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to controlling a multi-windowed user
interface. Specification, paragraph 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is CA, Inc. Appeal Br.
2.
Appeal 2018-002348
Application 14/231,860
Illustrative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method for adjusting a multi-
windowed display, comprising:
determining, by a computer, a plurality of applications
with which an operator is currently interacting;
identifying, by the computer, a respective window in the
multi-windowed display corresponding to each of the plurality of
applications with which the operator is currently interacting, the
multi-windowed display comprising a plurality of screens;
monitoring, by the computer, a respective information
source associated with each of the plurality of applications,
wherein data received from the respective information
source associated with each of the plurality of applications is
external from its associated application and from its associated
application's corresponding window;
detecting, by the computer, an activity signature from one
of the respective information sources, the activity signature
related to the associated application; and
based on the detected activity signature, adjusting, by the
computer, how the window corresponding to the associated
application is displayed within the multi-windowed display,
wherein adjusting comprises changing a screen, among the
plurality of screens, on which the window corresponding to the
associated application is displayed.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Basson (US Patent
Application Publication 2011/0283226 Al; published November 17, 2011)
and Gupta (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0019873 Al; published
January 16, 2014). Final Action 2-9.
Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Basson, Gupta, and Balasubramanian (US Patent
2
Appeal 2018-002348
Application 14/231,860
Application Publication 2008/0163258 Al; published July 3, 2008). Final
Action 9--11.
Claims 5-7, 9, 14--16, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Basson, Gupta, and Nancke-Krogh (US
Patent Application Publication 2015/0067591 Al; published March 5,
2015). Final Action 11-16.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief ( filed September 21, 2017), the Reply Brief
(filed January 2, 2018), the Answer (mailed November 3, 2017) and the
Final Office Action (mailed April 21, 2017) for the respective details.
Appellants contend Basson fails to disclose the claim 1 limitation:
monitoring, by the computer, a respective information
source associated with each of the plurality of applications,
wherein data received from the respective information
source associated with each of the plurality of applications is
external from its associated application and from its associated
application's corresponding window.
Appeal Brief 12.
Appellants contend:
In every type of data in Basson that is noted in the Final
Office Action ( e.g., email, instant message, TV news article) the
application that is associated with that particular type of data
once it is received is the application the uses the received data
and is in control of, or provides, the associated GUI window in
which the particular data is displayed. Thus, in Basson, the data
received from the respective information source is neither
external from its associated application nor external from its
associated application's corresponding window.
Appeal Brief 12-13.
3
Appeal 2018-002348
Application 14/231,860
Appellants further contend:
In the example from paragraph [0037] [of the Specification,] a
window for a network operations management application may
be brought to the foreground because of nearby report of bad
weather or natural disaster. Such management applications
typically employ protocols such as SNMP and CMIP to monitor
and display the operational status of network-connected devices.
The weather-related report or disaster-related report, such as
from a newsfeed, even after it is received, would not be part of
the data used by the management application to monitor network
devices nor would the display window of the management
application display the weather/disaster report.
Appeal Brief 13.
The Examiner finds Appellants' argument:
[ A Jppears to hinge on an interpretation of the limitation of claim
1 that is not required by the claim language. Specifically, the
argument implies that the claim language should be interpreted
"wherein data received . . . is maintained to be external". The
claim currently states "wherein data received ... is external". As
the claim is currently worded both "received" and "external"
refer to the word "data". Specifically "data" must be "received",
and "data" must be "external". In other words, the claim
language can be interpreted to mean that the data that is being
received is external. To require that the data be external once it
is received is to insert an additional requirement not currently
present in the claims that says that the data is maintained external
after reception. However, the Examiner believes that Basson
discloses both interpretations.
Answer 3.
Appellants argue: "[T]hat in the system of Basson the window or
application is what is monitored and, thus, Basson is in direct contrast to the
feature of claim 1 that the 'data received from the information source ... is
external from its associated application and from its associated
application's corresponding window." Reply Brief 4. We do not find
4
Appeal 2018-002348
Application 14/231,860
Appellants' arguments persuasive because they are not commensurate with
the scope of the claim. Claim 1 only requires the received data to be
external from the applications and as the Examiner found, Basson discloses
an application wherein the data is received from an external source. See
Final Action 3 ( citing Basson, paragraphs 16, 18, 60 and Figure 1 ). Further,
Appellants' example from paragraph 37 of the Specification does not limit
the scope of the claims; nor does the example differentiate over the
teachings of Basson. See, for example, Basson Figure 1.
Appellants argue the "arbitration system among competing
applications disclosed by Gupta is applicable to a user interface that
experiences application thrashing when applications compete for exclusive
control of the user interface." Appeal Brief 15. Appellants contend:
and
the multi-windowed display system of Basson does not include
a user interface in which multiple applications must compete to
come to the foreground in order to have sole control of the user
interface but instead includes a user interface in which multiple
windows are simultaneously displayed in the same user interface
even if the windows have different priorities
[ t ]herefore, it would not have been obvious to modify the system
of Basson to include the arbitration system of Gupta because no
improvement or benefit to the system of Bas son would have been
realized because the limitations of the system of Gupta that
require the arbitration system do not exist in the user interface of
Basson.
Appeal Brief 15.
The Examiner finds "a major concern of Basson is the problem of
which application should receive focus and be in the foreground (Basson, at
least i-f002 l -i-f0023, i-f0061, and i-f0045)" and "Bas son characterizes individual
windows as being designated for receiving keyboard focus (Basson, i-f0021-
5
Appeal 2018-002348
Application 14/231,860
i10023)." Answer 5. The Examiner further finds "Basson's display of
multiple windows simultaneously does not characterize Basson as a system
where multiple windows have 'control' of the user interface." Answer 5.
The Examiner finds, "Gupta also discloses a user interface in which multiple
windows can simultaneously be displayed (Gupta, Fig. 4 with i-f0047 and
i-f0044 )" and, therefore, "Basson' s display of multiple windows
simultaneously does not differentiate it from Gupta, and does not preclude it
from experiencing "thrashing" as described in Gupta." Answer 5. The
Examiner finds, "Basson's window prioritization is an arbitration system for
determining which windows are presented, how they are presented, and
whether they receive input focus to prevent interruption from other
applications vying for focus" (Answer 6-7) and "[a]s a result, the Examiner
concludes that the two disclosures are in the same field of endeavor, and that
one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Gupta to improve upon
Basson." Answer 7. The Examiner also finds:
While Basson describes an arbitration system for windows
which vie for foreground status and keyboard focus, Basson does
not address how to apply such as system to a computer with
multiple display screens, a common computer configuration.
Gupta discloses such a system - the techniques of assessing
display priority, determining the available display real-estate,
and re-assigning applications across physical displays based on
application and display priority as taught by Gupta (Gupta,
i-f0069-i-f0078 with Fig. 7 A), would be directly applicable to
extending the implementation of a window priority system ( such
as Basson) to the common computer hardware configuration of
having multiple displays (Gupta, i-f0064).
Answer 7.
The Examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art,
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have
6
Appeal 2018-002348
Application 14/231,860
modified window position adjustment of Basson to include
adjusting the screen on which various windows are positioned as
determined by both screen and notification priority, based on the
teachings of Gupta. The motivation for doing so would have been
to promote the most important notifications to the most important
display ( Gupta, i-f0064 ), enabling the prioritization of Basson to
be efficiently realized across multiple displays.
Final Action 4.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner can satisfy this test by showing some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (citing
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). We find the Examiner's motivation to combine the
references meets the test for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Further, "[a]s our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR, 550 U.S.
at 418. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8,
10, 11, 13, 1 7, and 19 argued together. See Appeal Brief 16-17.
Appellants contend, "the hypothetical system formed by combining
Basson, Gupta[,] and Nancke-Krogh does not teach or suggest the particular
features of claim 5. According to the Final Office Action[2J (at pages 11 to
2 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed
7
Appeal 2018-002348
Application 14/231,860
12), the resulting hypothetical system would determine that a window has
been moved from one screen to another and that once this transfer is
accomplished, the identity of a user of the new screen can be determined."
Appeal Brief 18. Appellants argue, "[i]n the proposed hypothetical system,
the movement of the window from one screen to another is detected and that
supposedly allows a determination that an operator's identity has changed"
and "[i]n direct contrast, according to claim 5, the activity signature is
detected (i.e., an indication that an identity of the operator has changed) and
based on that, the 'adjusting [of the window] comprises changing a screen
... on which the window corresponding to the associated application is
displayed.'" Appeal Brief 18-19.
The Examiner finds, "Basson as modified by Gupta does not address
the specific case of changing identity" and "Nancke-Krogh teaches a
window management system in which windows can be transferred to
different operators (Nancke-Krough [sic], at least i-f0085-i-f0087)." Answer
8. "In other words, Nancke-Krogh teaches an indication that an identity of
an operator has changed." Answer 8. We agree with the Examiner's
findings. Claim 5 only requires an indication that the identity of the operator
has changed and Nancke-Krogh shows that indicating operator change is
well known in the art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
invention, to have modified window management of Basson as
modified by Gupta, to include the ability to transfer windows to
other users, computers, and desktops based on the teachings of
Nancke-Krogh. The motivation for doing so would have been to
eliminate unnecessary steps for collaborating with or transferring
control of windows between users and computers (Nancke-
Krogh, ,I0007-,IOO 10).
Final Action 12.
8
Appeal 2018-002348
Application 14/231,860
rejection of claim 5, as well as, claims 6, 7, 9, 14--16, and 28 not argued
separately with distinction. See Appeal Brief 17-19.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claim 1-19 are 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 ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(v).
AFFIRMED
9