Lockheed Martin Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 4, 2020

13953886 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
13/953,886 07/30/2013 Howell Hollis 1202-065/IS-0466 1027
10904 7590 09/04/2020
Lockheed Martin and Withrow & Terranova
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
LONG, ANDREA NATAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2020 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte HOWELL HOLLIS, MICHAEL C. SEMENIUK,
ROBERT CHARLES McCARTHY, ZACHARY JAMES HEYLMUN,
and HONG PHUOC NGUYEN1
_____________

Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–10, 13–18, and 20. Final Act. 1.
Claim 19 is allowed. Id. Claims 11 and 12 are objected to. Id. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies Lockheed Martin
Corporation, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886

2

Invention
The invention is directed to a method for implementing a multi-
monitor full screen mode in an application module. See Abstract. Claims 1,
16, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of
the invention.
1. A computer-implemented method for implementing a
multi-monitor full screen mode in an application module
executing on a device comprising a processor, the method
comprising computer-implemented operations for:
determining, by the application module, that the multi-
monitor full screen mode is requested;
determining a number (N) of monitors that are coupled to
a plurality of video ports of the device, wherein N is greater
than one, the N monitors each having a respective maximum
display area based on a corresponding monitor screen;
directing, by the application module, a window
management module (WMM) that is independent of the
application module to display at least one cover window that
has dimensions coextensive with all dimensions of the
respective maximum display areas of the N monitors combined;
determining at least one primary monitor of the N
monitors;
determining a full screen display area associated with the
at least one primary monitor;
sizing a main application window of the application
module to have dimensions that are at least coextensive with
dimensions of the full screen display area; and
directing the WMM to display the main application
window on the at least one primary monitor.
Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886

3

Prior Art
Name2 Reference Date
Clark US 5,835,090 Nov. 10, 1998
Butler US 6,018,340 Jan. 25, 2000
Orsolits US 2003/0079032 A1 Apr. 24, 2003
Eastman US 2005/0020238 A1 Jan 27, 2005
Nickell US 2007/0016867 A1 Jan. 18, 2007
Purcell US 2007/0024645 A1 Feb. 1, 2007
Miyagi US 2013/0022292 A1 Jan. 24, 2013
Frederickson US 2014/0351722 A1 Filed May 23, 2013
Daniel Dilger, Inside 05 X 10.8 Mountain Lion GM: Go Full Screen on any
display, http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/21/inside_os_x_108_
mountain_lion_gm_go_full_screen_on_any_display.html (July 21, 2012)
(last visited Sept. 1, 2020).
Rejections3 at Issue4
1. Claims 1–6, 13, 16–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Dilger, Purcell, Nickell, and Eastman. Final Act. 2–7.
2. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dilger, Purcell,
Nickell, Eastman, and Miyagi. Final Act. 8.
3. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dilger, Purcell,
Nickell, Eastman, and Frederickson. Final Act. 9.

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
3 The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
4 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
November 20, 2018, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed March 11, 2019, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed May 2, 2018, the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed January 11, 2019, and the Specification (“Spec.”)
filed July 30, 2013.
Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886

4

4. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dilger,
Purcell, Nickell, Eastman, and Orsolits. Final Act. 10–11.
5. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dilger, Purcell,
Nickell, Eastman, and Clark. Final Act. 11.
6. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dilger, Purcell,
Nickell, Eastman, and Butler. Final Act. 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner indicates that claim 19 is allowable and that claims 11
and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 13.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–10, 13–18, and 20 in
light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s arguments as they
are presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.

CLAIMS 1–6, 13, 16–18, AND 20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
DILGER, PURCELL, NICKELL, AND EASTMAN.
A window management module (WMM) that is independent
of the application module.
Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “directing, by the application
module, a window management module (WMM) that is independent of the
application module to display at least one cover window that has dimensions
Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886

5

coextensive with all dimensions of the respective maximum display areas of
the N monitors combined.” Independent Claims 16 and 19 recite
commensurate limitations.
Appellant argues this limitation can be analyzed into two components,
a first part relates to who directs the WMM, and a second part relates to
what the WMM is being directed to do. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant explains
operating systems often provide a window manager monitor (WMM)
component with which application modules may interact to display windows
on a monitor. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant continues, instead of the application
modules having to understand the nuances and complexities of the many
different graphics cards that may be used on different computing devices, as
well as maintaining window coordination among different application
modules that may be unaware of one another, the application modules
interact with the WMM which interacts with the graphics hardware. Id.
Appellant explains various operating systems implement full screen modes
where a window associated with a single application covers an entire
monitor. Unlike conventional systems wherein full screen mode requires the
application module to handle the various interactions with the graphics cards
that would otherwise be handled by the WMM, Appellant’s invention relates
to an application-implemented, multi-monitor full-screen mode. Appeal Br.
6.
The Examiner finds Dilger essentially teaches the claimed system,
except Dilger does not teach where the application module directs a window
management module that is independent of the application module. Final
Act. 4. The Examiner finds Nickell teaches where the application module
Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886

6

directs a window management module that is independent of the application
module. Id. (citing Nickell Fig. 1, ¶¶ 22, 23).
Appellant contends Nickell discloses communication between an
application and a window manager, but that Nickell teaches the operating
system, not the application, implements the full-screen mode. Appeal Br. 7.
Moreover, Appellant argues Dilger discloses a full-screen mode in the Apple
OS X 10.8 operating system for multiple monitors. Id.
The Examiner finds:
Nickell teaches the user application (application module) sends
a message to the window manager that it is entering full screen
mode. As can be seen, the determining of full screen request is
made by the application module and then presented to the
window manager. The combined teaching of Dilger and
Nickell teaches “determining, by the application module, that
the multi-monitor full screen mode is requested.”
Ans. 17.
Appellant replies that the Examiner’s finding that the application
module determines the full screen request was made, and then presents the
determination to the window manager supports Appellant’s position. Reply
Br. 3 (citing Ans. 17). Appellant argues that determining a request for
multi-monitor, full-screen mode and presenting that request is not the same
as directing the WMM to display a cover window. Id. That is, Appellant
argues that in the claimed invention, the WMM is merely used as a tool that
responds to instructions from the application module, which is responsible
for determining how to respond to the multi-monitor full-screen request.
Appellant argues that, in contrast, an application module in Nickell merely
Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886

7

passes the full-screen mode request to the WMM and that the WMM is
responsible for determining how to respond to the full-screen request.
Appellant’s arguments accord with the Specification’s disclosed
distinctions among the terms “determine,” “request,” and “direct.”
Appellant discusses the prior art:
The creation, movement and closing of windows is typically
managed by the operating system in response to requests from
the application module.
Spec. ¶ 3.
For performance purposes and other reasons, most
graphic cards and operating systems allow an operating mode
wherein the application module, rather than the operating
system, is responsible for what is drawn (sometimes referred to
as “displayed”) on the monitor. This mode is sometimes
referred to as “full screen mode.”
Spec. ¶ 5. Appellant next distinguished the claimed invention:
The application module 14-5 determines that a multi-
monitor full screen mode is requested (Figure 4, block 1000).
The application module 14-5 may make this determination in
response to receiving input from the user 20, or, for example,
based on a configuration file that indicates a default execution
mode of the application module 14-5 is the multi-monitor full
screen mode.
Spec. ¶ 38 (emphasis added).
The application module 14-5 directs the WMM 16 to display at
least one cover window 52 that has dimensions that are at least
coextensive with dimensions of the maximum display areas 24
of the monitors 22-1 – 22-2.
Spec. ¶ 40.
In response to the direction from the application module
14-5, the WMM 16 generates a window entry 28-6 that contains
Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886

8

information identifying the cover window 52-1, and a window
entry 28-7 that contains information identifying the cover
window 52-2. The WMM 16 displays the cover windows 52-1,
52-2.
Spec. ¶ 40. Appellant’s Figure 4, which is reproduced below, clearly
distinguishes “determine” from “direct.”

Figure 4 is a flowchart of a method for implementing a multi-monitor
full screen mode.

Appellant discloses the application module determines that a multi-
monitor full-screen mode is requested and further determines the number of
Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886

9

monitors connected to the video ports. Spec. ¶ 38 (citing Fig. 4, block
1000); Spec. ¶ 39. Appellant discloses the application module directs the
WMM 16 to display at least one cover window that has dimensions that are
at least coextensive with dimensions of the maximum display areas of the
number of monitors. Spec. ¶ 40. Appellant discloses:
In response to the direction from the application module
14-5, the WMM 16 generates a window entry 28-6 that contains
information identifying the cover window 52-1, and a window
entry 28-7 that contains information identifying the cover
window 52-2. The WMM 16 displays the cover windows 52-1,
52-2.
Spec. ¶ 41.
The Examiner finds the application module determines that a full
screen request has been made and then presents that request to the window
manager (WMM). Ans. 17. The Examiner further finds the combined
teaching of Dilger and Nickell teaches “determining, by the application
module, that the multi-monitor full screen mode is requested.” However,
there is no finding that the prior art applications determine the number and
combined areas of the monitors and directs the WMM to display upon the
combined windows.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
1–6, 13, 16–18, and 20.
Claim 7: Obviousness over Dilger, Purcell, Nickell,
Eastman, and Miyagi.
Appellant contends Claim 7 is patentable by virtue of its dependence
from Claim 1. Appeal Br. 15.
Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886

10

The Answer finds Claim 7 is rejected in view of Claim 1. Ans. 21.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim
7.
Claim 8: Obviousness over Dilger, Purcell, Nickell,
Eastman, and Frederickson.
Appellant contends Claim 8 is patentable by virtue of its dependence
from Claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–16.
The Answer finds Claim 8 is rejected in view of Claim 1. Ans. 21.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim
8.
Claims 9 and 10: Obviousness over Dilger, Purcell, Nickell,
Eastman, and Orsolits.
Appellant contends Claims 9 and 10 are patentable by virtue of their
dependence from Claim 1. Appeal Br. 16.
The Answer finds Claims 9 and 10 are rejected in view of Claim 1.
Ans. 21.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
9 and 10.
Claim 14: Obviousness over Dilger, Purcell, Nickell,
Eastman, and Clark.
Appellant contends Claim 14 is patentable by virtue of its dependence
from Claim 1. Appeal Br. 16.
The Answer finds Claim 14 is rejected in view of Claim 1. Ans. 22.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim
14.

Appeal 2019-003131
Application 13/953,886

11

Claim 15: Obviousness over Dilger, Purcell, Nickell,
Eastman, and Butler.
Appellant contends Claim 15 is patentable by virtue of its dependence
from Claim 1. Appeal Br. 17.
The Answer finds Claim 15 is rejected in view of Claim 1. Ans. 22.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim
15.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 13,
16–18, 20
103 Dilger, Purcell,
Nickell, Eastman
1–6, 13,
16–18, 20
7 103 Dilger, Purcell,
Nickell, Eastman,
Miyagi
7
8 103 Dilger, Purcell,
Nickell, Eastman,
Frederickson
8
9, 10 103 Dilger, Purcell,
Nickell, Eastman,
Orsolits
9, 10
14 103 Dilger, Purcell,
Nickell, Eastman,
Clark
14
15 103 Dilger, Purcell,
Nickell, Eastman,
Butler
15
Overall
Outcome

1–10,
13–18, 20

REVERSED