Ex Parte Morris

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2012

10853830 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/853,830 05/24/2004 Robert P. Morris I233/US 5437
49278 7590 05/21/2012
SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
EXAMINER
GREENE, SABRINA LETICIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
______________

Ex parte ROBERT P. MORRIS
______________

Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, KARL D. EASTHOM, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-34, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

2
A. Appellant’s invention
Appellant’s invention relates to handheld electronic devices that
independently support multiple display mechanisms. Specification ¶ 001.
Appellants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Figure 1 shows an exemplary handheld electronic device that implements the
preferred embodiment of Appellant’s invention. Id. at ¶ 019. The device 10 is
a typical mobile phone that includes, inter alia, a primary display mechanism
20 (e.g., an LCD) and a secondary display mechanism 30, which in the
preferred embodiment is a projection system for projecting images or
information onto a suitably flat surface, such as a projection screen or wall. Id.
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

3
Appellants’ Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is a block diagram of a handheld electronic device 100 according to
the preferred embodiment of Appellant’s invention. Id. at ¶ 023. The device
100 includes a plurality of software applications 102, a display manager 104,1 a
graphics subsystem 106, a plurality of buffers 110a, 110b, 112a, and 112b, a
primary display window 120, and a secondary display window 130. Id.
In the preferred embodiment, the display manager 104 operates in at
least two modes: mirror and independent. Id. at ¶ 025. In the mirror mode, the
set of objects displayed on the secondary display window(s) 130 mirror those
displayed in the primary display window 120, i.e., the objects displayed are

1 Although element 104 is labeled “Window Manager 104” in Figure 2, it is
referred to as “display manager 104” throughout the Specification.
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

4
identical. Id. In the independent mode, the primary and secondary display
windows 120 and 130 can display some common objects, or the displayed
objects can be completely distinct from one another. Id.
Once the mirror mode is set, the display manager 104 calls the graphics
subsystem 106 to associate at least one display buffer (e.g., 110a) with both the
primary display 120 and the secondary display 130 (step 302). Id. at ¶ 027. On
the other hand, if the mirror mode is deactivated, the display manager 104 calls
the graphics subsystem 106 to associate different display buffers 110a,110b to
the primary 120 and secondary 130 display windows. Id. at ¶ 032.
In some cases, it is desirable to display certain control icon/menu items
on the primary display window 120 and not on the secondary display window
130. Id. at ¶ 035. One way to achieve this outcome is to provide explicit
instructions in the application 102 directing the display manager 104 to write
one set of objects including the control icon/menu items to the display buffer
(e.g., 110a) associated with the primary display window 120 and to write
another set of objects excluding the control icon/menu items to the buffer (e.g.,
110b) associated with the secondary display window 130. Id. This, however,
requires additional coding in the application, which is time consuming, tedious
and inefficient. Id. To avoid such inefficiency, the preferred embodiment of
Appellant’s invention provides at least one preconfigured control filter 105 in
the display manager 104. Id. at ¶ 036. In a preferred embodiment, control
filter 105 is associated with filter criteria for defining an object, e.g., control
icon/menu items, and at least one affected display. Id. The filter criteria can be
preconfigured by the display manager 104 or user-defined. Id.
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

5
Figure 5A is reproduced below.

Figure 5A is a flowchart illustrating a process for implementing a filter
according to a preferred embodiment of Appellant’s invention. Id. at ¶ 039.
The process begins by activating control filter 105 in the display manager 104
(step 500). Id. The display manager 104 then calls the graphics subsystem 106
to associate an overlay buffer (e.g., 112a) with either the primary display
window 120 or secondary display window 130 or both (step 502), depending
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

6
on which display window(s) is (are) affected by the activated control filter 105.
Id. Once the control filter 105 is activated and the overlay buffer 112a is
associated with the affected display window (e.g., 120), the control filter 105
analyzes each object in a set of objects passed from the application 102 to
determine whether the object matches the filter criteria (step 504). Id. at ¶ 040.
The filter 105 writes the object to the overlay buffer 112a if the object matches
the filter criteria (step 506), and the object is displayed on the affected display
window (step 508). Id.

B. Representative Claim 13
The independent claims before us are claims 1, 13, and 24. Claim 13,
which is representative, reads as follows:
13. A method for independently supporting at least two display
mechanisms in a handheld electronic device comprising:
automatically analyzing an object for display to determine a
type of the object;
automatically applying preconfigured filter criteria to determine
whether the determined type of the object is for display with a first set
of objects or for display with a second set of objects;
allowing a first display mechanism to display the first set of
objects; and
allowing at least one second display mechanism to display the
second set of objects independently from the first display mechanism,
wherein the first set and second set of objects include at least one
common object and an object is automatically associated with one of
the primary and secondary display mechanisms based on a type of the
object.
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

7
Claims App. (Br.2 21).
C. The rejection
Claims 1-8 and 11-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Baskin3 in view of Perlman.4

II. DISCUSSION
Baskin discloses display control devices incorporating an auxiliary
monitor to provide the operator controlling the main presentation system
with private access to slide previews and slide information. Baskin 1:10-15.
Figure 1 of Baskin is reproduced below.

2 Second Appeal Brief, filed September 18, 2009.
3 U.S. Patent No. 5,307,055, issued April 26, 1994.
4 U.S. Patent No. 5,745,909, issued April 28, 1998.
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

8

Figure 1 depicts a first alternative embodiment in which a display
control device 11 is used in combination with a graphics generator means 10
(image generation means) and a main monitor 12 (primary display means).
Id. at 3:62-66. Display control device 11 comprises: (a) a control adapter
device 13, which incorporates a microprocessor 14 (display control logic
means) and an auxiliary display memory 15 (storage means); and (b) a
remote control device 17 (remote control means), which incorporates an
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

9
auxiliary monitor 18 (secondary display means). Id. at 3:66 – 4:4. The
operator uses remote control device 17 to control the presentation displayed
on the main monitor. Id. at 5:28-30. That is, “[b]y keying in commands to
the generator means 10 via the remote control device 17, the operator can
control the images or sequence of images displayed on the main monitor 12
as well as how quickly and how long the images are displayed.” Id. at 5:30-
34. The control of images on the auxiliary monitor 18 via a keypad on the
remote control device 17 is similar to the control of the images displayed on
the main monitor 12. Id. at 5:50-54.
The Examiner (Final Action 9) reads claim 13’s steps of “allowing a
first display mechanism to display the first set of objects” and “allowing at
least one second display mechanism to display the second set of objects
independently from the first display mechanism, wherein the first set and
second set of objects include at least one common object and an object is
automatically associated with one of the primary and secondary display
mechanisms based on a type of the object” on column 4, lines 53-61 of
Baskin, which describe Figure 1 as follows:
In the first alternative embodiment, as illustrated in
FIG. 1, a primary signal 41 of the generator means 10 is
coupled to the input of the main monitor 12. In addition, a
secondary signal 21 is generated by the generator means 10 and
is transmitted to the microprocessor 14 via a bi-directional
interface 50. Primary visual images are displayed on the main
monitor 12 (primary display means). Secondary visual images
are displayed on the auxiliary monitor 18 (secondary display
means).
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

10
In view of the Examiner’s further statement that “[b]y keying in a command
to the generator via the hand held device the images are controlled
automatically that are displayed on the main monitor” (Final Action 9-10),
we understand the Examiner’s position to be that Baskin’s graphics
generator 10 responds to commands generated by remote control device 17
by automatically associating the primary signal 41 (representing, e.g., a
video signal) with main graphics monitor 12 and automatically associating
the secondary output signal 31 (representing, e.g., private notes) with
auxiliary monitor 18.
The Examiner then finds that Baskin fails to disclose the recited steps
of “automatically analyzing an object for display to determine a type of the
object” and “automatically applying preconfigured filter criteria to
determine whether the determined type of the object is for display with a
first set of objects or for display with a second set of objects” and relies on
Perlman for such teachings. Final Action 10. For the following reasons, we
agree with Appellant that Baskin and Perlman fail to disclose or suggest
modifying Baskin to perform these two steps, let alone to also base the
claimed automatic association step on the results of these two steps, as
required to satisfy claim 13.
Perlman discloses a method and apparatus for reducing flicker of a
display image defined in HTML format for display on a television monitor.
Perlman, Abstract. Figure 1 of Perlman is reproduced below.
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

11

Figure 1 illustrates a system employing a flicker reduction device in
accordance with Perlman’s invention. Id. at 6:45-47. The dedicated
computer system 12 is connected to a television monitor display 14 used to
display the web page images. Id. at 6:49-51. The display shown in Figure 1
illustrates four page elements that are treated independently by the dedicated
computer system 12. Id. at 6:53-56. The background is a high flicker tag
image 11 that would require a higher degree of filtering in order to reduce
interlace flicker; the low flicker tag image 18 would require a lower degree
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

12
of filtering in order to reduce interlace flicker; and the untagged image 22
and free flowing text field 20, on the other hand, would not be filtered since
they are not designated for filtering. Id. at 6:56-62.
Figure 2 of Perlman is reproduced below.

Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

13
Figure 2 illustrates a flow diagram illustrating the steps of filtering an object
to be displayed in order to reduce flicker in the display image according to
one embodiment of Perlman’s invention. Id. at 4:25-28. As the commands
are being executed, the dedicated computer system 12 displays the web page
images in response to the instructions. Id. at 7:25-28. If no tags occur that
designate flicker filtering, the user browsing system simply displays the
objects of images unfiltered in step 38. Id. at 7:28-30. On the other hand, if
tags occur that designate filtering, the user browsing system in step 40 filters
the objects or images according to the data instructions. Id. at 7:30-33.
The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to
modify the control filter taught by Baskin et al. to include the filtering
process being done automatically of Perlman et al., in order to obtain a
method where data is displayed being already filtered.” Final Action 10;
Answer 20. However, in Baskin thus modified the filtering is not used “to
determine whether the determined type of the object is for display with a
first set of objects or for display with a second set of objects,” as required by
claim 13. We agree with Appellant that “[s]ince in Perlman all images are
sent to the same display, there is no automatic association with a display
based on object type in Perlman.” Br. 14. The same deficiency occurs if
Perlman’s filtering is added to Baskin’s Figure 8a and 8b alternative
embodiments, which are described in column 5, lines 11-22, relied on at
page 19 of the Final Action.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 13 and its dependent claims 14-23. For similar reasons, we do not
Appeal 2010-003777
Application 10/853,830

14
sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 24 and their
dependent claims 2-8, 11, 12, and 25-34.

III. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision that claims 1-8 and 11-34 are unpatentable
over Baskin in view of Perlman is reversed.

REVERSED

KMF

SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC
5400 Trinity Road
Suite 303
Raleigh NC 27607