Ex Parte Mercer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2014

11774148 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte PAUL MERCER
__________

Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
operating method for a mobile device. The Examiner rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. (see App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“[C]onventional mobile devices do not allow multiple applications to
be displayed on the display area, so a user cannot readily toggle between
applications. Additionally, mobile devices generally have limited
mechanisms for some types of inputs, such as direct manipulation pointing
abilities” (Spec. 2 ¶ 0003).
The Specification teaches “an operating system method to display and
manipulate one or more applications along a single axis of a screen of the
device” (Spec. 3 ¶ 0005).
The Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15-19, 21, and 23-28 are on appeal.
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. An operating method for a mobile device, the method
comprising:
inserting a plurality of windows into first locations in
virtual display space, each of the windows having a fixed
size in a first dimension;
displaying at least a subset of the plurality of
windows, the plurality of windows placed at the first
locations of the virtual display space on a display device;
displaying a fixed window within the virtual display
space for display on the display device;
responsive to receiving a first input, scrolling at least
one of the plurality of windows other than the fixed window
in a direction corresponding to a second dimension
perpendicular to the first dimension so that at least one
different window is displayed on the display device; and
displaying the fixed window overlaid on the scrolled
window.

Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148

3
The issue
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15-19, 21, and
23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Perttula,2 Rossi,3 and
Matthews4 (Ans. 4-14).
The Examiner finds that “Perttula teaches an operating method for a
mobile device” with “a number of data subsets displayed in graphic frames”
(Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Perttula teaches that a “user navigates in
the plane of the virtual dashboard by using the joystick . . . in the sequence
shown in Figs. 4a-d . . . so that non-visible data sets are scrolled into the
display area” (Ans. 5-6).
The Examiner finds that “Perttula does not explicitly disclose that
windows in the virtual display space have a fixed size in a first dimension
but are sizeable in a second dimension, nor displaying a fixed window on the
virtual display space that overlays all other windows moved beneath it”
(Ans. 6).
The Examiner finds that “Rossi teaches a virtual display space having
a first dimension with a fixed size” and that “Matthews teaches displaying a
fixed window” (Ans. 6).
The Examiner finds it obvious to combine the references because
[A]rranging the frames displayed in Perttula’s “virtual
dashboard” in Rossi’s manner would maximize the size of
each frame in the available display space without the frames
overlapping, and also allowing the user to resize windows
they were particularly interested in or focused on to increase

2 Perttula, P., US 7,587,684 B2, issued Sept. 8, 2009.
3 Rossi et al., US 2006/0224992 A1, published Oct. 5, 2006.
4 Matthews et al., US 2006/0107231 A1, published May 18, 2006.
Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148

4
the display space available for that window . . . . Moreover,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it
is common for operating systems such as Perttula’s to
display windows containing key system information “always
on top” in fixed locations, as taught by Matthews, so that the
user of that interface is able to quickly access a control panel
or task bar to monitor currently running applications and
launch new applications/windows without having to search
through all the windows currently open on the display.

(Ans. 7-8.)
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Perttula, Rossi, and Matthews
suggest “scrolling at least one of the plurality of windows other than the
fixed window in a direction corresponding to a second dimension
perpendicular to the first dimension so that at least one different window is
displayed on the display device” as required by claim 1?
Findings of Fact
1. Perttula teaches that a “virtual dashboard is formed by or
provided with a number of data subsets 5a, 5b displayed in graphic frames
representing a first abstraction level of data” (Perttula, col. 6, ll. 11-13).
2. Perttula teaches that at “the end of the transfer mode, the virtual
dashboard and its data subsets may be introduced from the sides or outer
perimeter of the screen 3 giving the impression that the user floats upwardly
through it or between the graphical frames until the user stabilises at level
above the dashboard” (Perttula, col. 6, ll. 13-18).
Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148

5
3. Figure 3 of Perttula is reproduced below:

“As shown in FIG. 3, the virtual dashboard may comprise a plurality of data
subsets not displayed in the screen 3. The user navigates in the plane of the
virtual dashboard by using the joystick 2. By using the arrow button(s) 2b,
the user may change which information item is highlighted” (Perttula, col. 6,
ll. 28-32).
4. Perttula teaches that
When the foreground and background pictures are
moved in the same direction the user will experience that the
subsets of data (foreground) is translated essentially in the
plane of the screen 3. By moving the foreground and
background in different directions it is possible to make the
user experience a rolling action, where the data subsets 5a,
5b are located on a sphere being rotated relative to the
screen 3 such that other data subsets appear.

(Perttula, col. 6, l. 64 to col. 7, l. 4.)
Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148

6
5. Figure 4 of Perttula is reproduced below:

“It may be noted, in the sequence from FIG. 4b to FIG. 4d, that the
foreground picture formed by the data subsets 5a-5c and the background
picture of the clouds has moved from their original positions indicated by A
and B to their new positions indicated by A' and B'” (Perttula, col. 6, ll. 39-
43).
6. Rossi teaches that “[c]hild window presentation area 132
comprises a visual region within parent window 130 wherein child windows
134-144 are rendered” (Rossi 3 ¶ 0032).
7. Rossi teaches a “display scheme where the width and/or height
of child window presentation area 122 remain constant” (Rossi 6-7 ¶ 0075).
8. Rossi teaches that in “another display scheme, referred to herein
as the ‘vertical rectangular tiling scheme,’ all child windows are rectangular
in shape and are arranged vertically within child window presentation area
132, such that none of the child windows overlap” (Rossi 3 ¶ 0038).
Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148

7
9. Rossi teaches that “when the size of one child window 134-144
is changed, the size of one or more of the other child windows will need to
be changed, so that all of child windows 134-144 continue to be displayed in
a non-overlapping manner that fully occupies child window presentation
area 132” (Rossi 4 ¶ 0040).
10. Matthews teaches that:
[A]n independent user interface may be moved from a
location within a designated area on a display to a location
outside of the designated area that is occupied by another
display element. The display element may be a window, for
example. The independent user interface may be set to be
displayed in back of other display elements (e.g., “always-
on- bottom”) or on top of other display elements (e.g.,
“always-on-top”).

(Matthews 1 ¶ 0009.)
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417.
Analysis
Appellant contends that “Perttula discloses a fixed horizontal size and
horizontal scrolling, whereas the claimed subject matter discloses a fixed
size in a first dimension and scrolling in a second dimension perpendicular
to the first dimension” (App. Br. 10). Appellant further contends that
“[n]either Rossi nor Matthews teaches ‘scrolling at least one of the plurality
Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148

8
of windows other than the fixed window in a direction corresponding to a
second dimension perpendicular to the first dimension so that at least one
different window is displayed on the display device’” (App. Br. 10-11).
The Examiner finds that:
Perttula explicitly discloses scrolling at least one of a
plurality of non-fixed windows in a direction corresponding
to a second dimension (e.g. user navigates in the plane of the
virtual dashboard by using the joystick, as shown in 2 of Fig.
3, and in the sequence shown in Figs. 4a-d . . .
perpendicular to a first dimension of fixed size (as shown in
Fig. 3, the frames that the data subsets are displayed in have
a maximum fixed height) so that at least one different
window is displayed on the display device

(Ans. 15). The Examiner also finds that Rossi teaches “a virtual display
space having a first dimension with a fixed size (e.g. child window
presentation window comprises a visual window within parent window
wherein child windows are rendered, as discussed in paragraph [0032],
which has a constant width and/or height” (Ans. 17).
We find that the Examiner has the better position, and adopt the
Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning (see Ans. 4-14 and 15-17). In
particular, we agree with the Examiner that the “windows having a fixed size
in a first dimension” required by claim 1 are not required to have the same
first size, only a size which is fixed at some point. Therefore, each of the
windows shown in either Figure 3 or Figures 4a-d are reasonably fixed in
their vertical dimension as they traverse the screen (FF 3, 5) in a
perpendicular motion.
We note that the Examiner appears to contend, with visual support
from Figure 3, that the windows are navigated “in the plane” of the
Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148

9
dashboard, so that if the two dimensional windows are shown in the
horizontal “x” direction and vertical “y” direction, the windows are
navigated in the “z” direction (FF 3).
Alternatively, Figure 4a-d of Perttula show movement of the windows
along a horizontal axis, while the windows vertical axis size remains
unchanged in appearance, so that they are “windows having a fixed size in a
first dimension” which are scrolled “in a direction corresponding to a second
dimension perpendicular to the first dimension so that at least one different
window is displayed on the display device” as required by claim 1 (FF 5).
There is no requirement in claim 1 requiring the windows to have a variable
size in the second dimension, so the windows may also have a fixed size in a
second, horizontal, dimension as shown in Perttula (FF 3, 5).
However, even if we agreed with Appellants that Perttula does not
clearly establish that the windows shown in Figure 4a-d have a “fixed size”
in the vertical dimension, Rossi teaches a “display scheme where the width
and/or height of child window presentation area 122 remain constant” (Rossi
6-7 ¶ 0075; FF 7). Therefore, Rossi’s teaching that the height (or vertical
dimension” of a window may be fixed reasonably suggests fixing the
vertical dimension of Perttula’s vertical windows in Figure 4a-d because the
“test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . .
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148

10
Appellant “notes that Figures 4a-d implicitly teach that the windows
can have variable sizes in the vertical direction because each window
appears to be sized to contain the data subset (5a, 5b, 5c) displayed within
it” (Reply Br. 4).
We are not persuaded. We recognize that the Examiner cannot rely
upon figures for precise dimensions. See, e.g., In re Nash, 230 F.2d 428,
431 (CCPA 1956). However, to the extent that Figures 4a-d appear, there is
no indication of a change in the vertical size of these windows as they are
horizontally scrolled (FF 5). Further, as we already noted above, Rossi
reasonably suggests that the vertical height may be fixed, teaching a “display
scheme where the width and/or height of child window presentation area 122
remain constant” (Rossi 6-7 ¶ 0075; FF 7).
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that
Perttula, Rossi, and Matthews suggest “scrolling at least one of the plurality
of windows other than the fixed window in a direction corresponding to a
second dimension perpendicular to the first dimension so that at least one
different window is displayed on the display device” as required by claim 1.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Perttula, Rossi, and Matthews. Pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(2006), we also affirm the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6,
7, 10, 11, 13, 15-19, 21, and 23-28, as these claims were not argued
separately.

Appeal 2012-003973
Application 11/774,148

11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc