Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2022

2020005599 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2022)

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. 15/171,192 06/02/2016 Kristin Marie Forster 27753-50002US 5028 132324 7590 02/01/2022 Fernando & Partners, LLP 2712 Augustine Drive Suite 240 Santa Clara, CA 95054 EXAMINER PARKER, JEANETTE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2022 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): mail@fernando-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KRISTIN MARIE FORSTER, RAYMOND S. SEPULVEDA, ERIC LANCE WILSON and JOHN O. LOUCH ___________ Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20, 24-51 and 55-65 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 10-11. Claims 1 and 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 21, 2020), the Final Action (mailed August 19, 2019) and the Answer (mailed May 11, 2020), for the respective details. 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.42(a). (“The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Apple, Inc. as the real party in Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 2 29-32 are independent. Claims 21-23 and 52-54 are canceled. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Introduction According to Appellant: The use of touch-sensitive surfaces as input devices for computers and other electronic computing devices has increased significantly in recent years. Exemplary touch-sensitive surfaces include touch pads and touch screen displays. Such surfaces are widely used to manipulate user interface objects on a display. Specification ¶ 2. “[The present invention] relates generally to electronic devices with one or more input devices, including but not limited to electronic devices with one or more input devices that detect inputs for manipulating user interfaces.” Specification ¶ 1. Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method comprising: at a device with a display, one or more input devices, one or more processors and a non-transitory memory: concurrently displaying, on the display: interest. Appeal Brief 3. 3 Appellant does not argue independent claims 1 and 29-32 individually. See Appeal Brief 14 (“An obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 29-32 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is improper for at least the following reasons.”). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 3 a first virtual desktop including a first window of an application that has a first size; and a virtual desktop configuration region; while concurrently displaying the first virtual desktop and the virtual desktop configuration region, receiving, with the one or more input devices, an input corresponding to a request to place a representation of the first window at a respective location in the virtual desktop configuration region; and in response to receiving the input: in accordance with a determination that the respective location is a first location that is associated with creating tiled virtual desktops, creating a new tiled virtual desktop that includes one or more tiles arranged in a structured arrangement, wherein creating the new tiled virtual desktop includes changing a size of the first window from the first size to a second size that corresponds to a tile in the new tiled virtual desktop in order to allow the first window to fit into the structured arrangement; and in accordance with a determination that the respective location is a second location that is associated with creating non-tiled virtual desktops, creating a new non-tiled virtual desktop that includes the first window, wherein the first window is maintained at the first size in the new non-tiled virtual desktop, wherein the second location is different from the first location. Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 4 References Name4 Reference Date Stoakley US 2001/0035881 A1 November 1, 2001 Stefaniak US 6,550,054 B1 April 15, 2003 Anderson US 2003/0189597 A1 October 9, 2003 Rizzo Moving to Microsoft Windows Vista: Visual Quick Project February 27, 2007 Beharie US 2009/0083655 A1 March 26, 2009 Sung US 2012/0011467 A1 January 12, 2012 Yamaki US 2013/0268895 A1 October 10, 2013 Ko US 2014/0229888 A1 August 14, 2014 Kim US 2016/0048284 A1 February 18, 2016 Fang US 2016/0085388 A1 March 24, 2016 Hanazaki US 2013/0254719 A1 September 26, 2013 Weiner US 2014/0359525 A1 December 4, 2014 Tsubotani US 2015/0207833 A1 July 23, 2015 Kim US 2016/0065648 A1 March 3, 2016 Rejections on Appeal5 Claims 1-20, 24-51 and 55-65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.6 Final Action 3-5. Claims 1-6, 20, 28-37, 51 and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 5 The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 28 and 59 is withdrawn. See Examiner Answer 3 (“The following grounds of rejection are not presented for review on appeal because they have been withdrawn by the examiner. Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C § 112: Claims 28 and 59”). 6 The 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claims 1-20, 24-51 and 55-65 was duplicated in the Final Action. See Final Action 5-7. We view this as harmless error. Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 5 § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, Beharie and Ko. Final Action 12-21. Claims 7-11 and 38-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, Beharie and Rizzo. Final Action 21-24. Claims 13, 14, 44 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, Beharie, Rizzo, Kim ‘284, Yamaki and Stefaniak. Final Action 25-29. Claims 15-19 and 46-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, Beharie, Rizzo and Anderson. Final Action 29-33. Claims 24 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, Beharie, Stoakley and Hanazaki. Final Action 33- 36. Claims 25 and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, Beharie and Tsubotani. Final Action 36-37. Claims 26 and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, Beharie and Kim ‘648. Final Action 37-38. Claims 27 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, Beharie, Kim ‘648 and Weiner. Final Action 38- 40. Claims 60-65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang, Beharie, Ko and Sung. Final Action 40-43. ANALYSIS Written Description Appellant contends, “The specification clearly supports ‘changing a size of the first window from the first size to a second size that corresponds to a tile Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 6 in the new tiled virtual desktop’, as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Brief 11 (referencing Specification ¶145 (Appellant’s Figures 6A-6H)). The Examiner determines that both the Specification’s paragraph 145, as well as Appellant’s Figure 6G, fail to describe creating a new virtual desktop (a new tiled virtual desktop) includes changes a size of window (the first window) in a different desktop (the first virtual desktop). The half screen size window 608 in figure [6]G and full screen size window 608 in figure [6]H merely show that window sizes can be changed but doesn’t disclose that “creating the new tiled virtual desktop ... includes changing a size of the first window from the first size to a second size” as recited in claims 1, and 29-32. Answer 5. Appellant contends, “As can be seen in Figures 6A and 6G, the size of the window 608 in the new tiled virtual desktop 601-C (shown in Figure 6G) is different from the size of the window 608 in the virtual desktop 601-A (shown in Figure 6A).” Appeal Brief 11 (citing Specification ¶145). Specification ¶ 145 discloses: In some embodiments, in response to selection of text-based indicator 615-C for virtual desktop 601-C (e.g., with a single or double click) in Figure 6F, window 608 is shown as a partial-screen (e.g., half-screen) tile within tiled virtual desktop 601-C as shown in Figure 6G. In some embodiments, in response to selection of the text-based indicator 615-C for virtual desktop 601-C in Figure 6F, window 608 is shown as a full-screen tile within tiled virtual desktop 601-C as shown in Figure 6H. Appellant’s argument is persuasive of Examiner error because paragraph 145 and Figures 6A, 6G disclose window 608 in first and second screen sizes. Accordingly, we reverse the written description rejection of claims 1-20, 24-51 and 55-65. Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 7 Obviousness Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 20, 28-33, 36, 37, 51 and 59 Appellant contends the Final Office Action “improperly cites Fang for ‘a first location that is associated with creating tiled virtual desktops’ and ‘a second location that is associated with creating non-tiled virtual desktops.’” Appeal Brief 14. Appellant further contends: While Fang illustrates the option 408 in Figure 4 [ ], Fang does not mention element 408 in the description. As such, it is unclear whether a “user can create [a] virtual desktop by dragging a window to ... [the] option 408”, as alleged by the Final Office Action on Page 14. Hence, element 408 in Fang can neither qualify as the claimed first location nor the claimed second location. Appeal Brief 14. Fang discloses in Figure 4 “a preview that is usable to navigate between virtual desktops of an operating system of a computing device” wherein navigating between virtual desktops “causes representations 402,404 of the virtual desk-tops to be output as previews as proximal to the taskbar 406. An option 406 is also included as above to initiate creation of another virtual desktop” Fang ¶61. The paragraph mistakenly lists 406 as the option instead of element 408, however 406 has already been designated as the taskbar. See Fang’s Figure 4; see also Answer 6. Appellant argues that, “even if Fang allows creation of a new virtual desktop by dragging a window to the option 408, Fang is silent as to whether the options 302 and 408 trigger creation of new virtual desktops of the same type or of different types.” Appeal Brief 16. Appellant contends, “Claim 1 clearly recites that the first location ‘is associated with creating tiled virtual desktops’ and the second location ‘is associated with creating non-tiled virtual desktops.’” Appeal Brief 16. Appellant further contends that, “Since Fang does not Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 8 differentiate between the options 302 and 408, Fang does not teach ‘a first location that is associated with creating tiled virtual desktops’ and ‘a second location that is associated with creating non-tiled virtual desktops’, as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Brief 16. Appellant does not explain why options 302 and 408 are not differentiated by Fang. Further, Appellant deduces because of the unexplained differentiation, Fang fails to teach claim 1’s disputed limitations. Appeal Brief 16. We disagree with Appellant’s interpretation of Fang. Furthermore, Fang distinguishes options 302 and 408 by teaching, “Selection of this option 302 also includes output of a feature 308 to initiate creation of an additional virtual desktop to be added to existing virtual desk tops for access by a user” and “An option [408] is also included as above to initiate creation of another virtual desktop.” Fang ¶¶60-61. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that Fang does not differentiate between options 302 and 408 is not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellant concludes, “Although the foregoing remarks are in reference to claim 1, [Appellant] submits that the remarks apply equally to analogous independent claims 29, 30, 31 and 32. Thus, Fang, Beharie and Ko fail to disclose features of independent claims 29, 30, 31 and 32, and claims that depend therefrom.” Appeal Brief 17. It is noted that the Examiner does not rely upon Fang to disclose the “a second location that is associated with creating non-tiled virtual desktops” limitation recited in the independent claims as Appellant argues. See Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner determines that: Fang does not appear to explicitly disclose device and method comprising creating a new non-tiled-virtual desktop. However, Beharie discloses device and method comprising creating a new non-tiled-virtual desktop that includes the first window (Beharie Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 9 paragraph [0033] discloses creating non-tiled virtual desktops, V.D. 1 and V.D. 2 as shown in figure 1). Final Action 14 (emphasis added). The Examiner also determines that Ko discloses: [a] device and method wherein creating the new tiled window in which the first window is tiled in a structured arrangement includes changing a size of the first window from the first size to a second size that corresponds to a tile in the desktop in order to allow the first window to fit into the structured arrangement [and wherein the] non- tiled windows where the first window is maintained at the first size in the new non-tiled virtual desktop. Answer 7-8 (citing Ko Figures 20D, 20E, 24, ¶¶ 378-84, 391-92, 444 and 446). “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)). Here, the Examiner’s determinations are undisputed by Appellant. See Appeal Brief 17. Hence, Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 20, 28-33, 36, 37, 51 and 59 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 17. Claims 3 and 34 Appellant contends, “Beharie does not teach or suggest ‘displaying dimensions set in accordance with the first and second windows as tiles that each have respective a corresponding application characteristic associated with each of the first and second windows’, as recited in dependent claims 3 and 34.” Appeal Brief 17. Appellant argues that, “Beharie teaches that ‘[a]n application move operation ... moves an application (and its associated application window) from the active desktop ... to a virtual desktop.’ However, Beharie is silent as to dimensions of the associated application window once the associated application window is moved to the virtual desktop.” Appeal Brief 17. Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 10 Appellant’s Specification discloses, “adding the first window to the second virtual desktop in a structured arrangement with the second window includes (960) displaying the first and second windows as tiles that each have respective dimensions set in accordance with a corresponding application characteristic associated with each of the first and second windows.” Specification ¶ 244; see Appeal Brief 7-8. The Specification does not disclose the manner in which the respective dimensions are set in accordance with corresponding application characteristics. Beharie discloses an active desktop containing a sidebar where the “[s]idebar contains visual representations of virtual desktops 122, 124. Visual representations of virtual desktops 122, 124 may be any suitable representation of a virtual desktop.” Beharie ¶33, Figure 1; see Answer 8-9. Beharie describes an example wherein: the visual representation 122, 124 may be a screen shot of the virtual desktop or may be drawn based on data representing a virtual desktop 126, 128 stored in memory 104. In such cases, the visual representation 122, 124 may be a shrunken image of the actual virtual desktop as it would 114 appear if activated as the active desktop. Beharie ¶33 (emphasis added); see Answer 9. Appellant’s argument in not persuasive of Examiner error because Beharie discloses arranging first and second windows as tiles where each have respective dimensions corresponding to an application characteristics as recited in dependent claims 3 and 34. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 34.Claims 4 and 35 Appellant argues: The Final Office Action dated August 19, 2019 improperly cites paragraphs [0033]-[0034] and [0042] of Beharie for dependent claims 4 and 35. Beharie does not teach or suggest “displaying Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 11 the first and second windows as tiles that each have respective dimensions set in accordance with at least the dimensions of the first window as displayed on the first virtual desktop”, as recited in dependent claims 4 and 35. Appeal Brief 18. Appellant argument is not persuasive of Examiner error for the reasons stated above in regard to dependent claims 3 and 34. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 35. Claims 7-11 and 38-42 Appellant argues, “the Final Office Action dated August 19, 2019 wrongly equates the taskbar in Rizzo to the claimed virtual desktop configuration region. However, the taskbar described in Rizzo is not the same as the claimed virtual desktop configuration region.” Appeal Brief 18. Appellant deduces that, “The taskbar in Rizzo cannot qualify as the claimed virtual desktop configuration region at least because the taskbar does not include the claimed first and second locations.” Appeal Brief 18. The Examiner addresses the recited first and second locations in regard to independent claim 1 as discussed above. See Final Action 14-16. The Examiner further determines that Rizzo modifies the combination of Fang and Beharie: (Rizzo pages 5-6 discloses Configuration region, taskbar, is in association with first edge, along the right edge of the screen Rizzo, Rizzo page 5-6 discloses in response to user input associated with the first edge, grabbing the edge and dragging it outward, the region is arranged, the task bar can emerge from the first edge, as shown in Rizzo page 5-6. Final Action 21; Answer 12. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that “Fang, Beharie and Rizzo fail to disclose features of claims 7-11 and 38-42” is not persuasive of Examiner error. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 12 Claims 14 and 45 The Examiner determines: Yamaki discloses device and method comprising in response to detecting the addition of the additional icon to a region, and in accordance with a determination that the total number of the icons in the region does not exceed the display limit adding the icon adding the icon to the region (Yamaki paragraph [0062]- [0063] discloses adding icons after determining display limit has not been exceeded). Final Action 28 (emphasis added). Appellant contends: Citing Yamaki for claim 14 is improper because claim 14 clearly recites “adding a text based representation of the additional virtual desktop ... without converting ... the text... to graphical representations.” By contrast, as the Final Office Action states, “Yamaki discloses adding icons”, which are graphical representations and not text based representations. Although the foregoing remarks are in reference to claim 14, Applicant submits that the remarks apply equally to analogous dependent claim 45. Appeal Brief 19. Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error because Yamaki discloses, “When it is judged that there already are N-number of icons 32, the control unit 12 reads out display information for notifying that icons cannot be added from the display information storage unit (not shown) and outputs the display information to the display unit 13. Yamaki ¶61 (emphasis added); see Final Action 26. The Examiner relies upon Yamaki (“a determination that the total number of the icons in the region does not exceed the display limit adding the icon [ ] to the region”) in combination with Fang and Beharie, however Appellant fails to address the combination with any specificity. Final Action 28-29; see Appeal Brief 19. “Non- Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 13 obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14 and 45. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims not argued by Appellant. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20, 24-51, 55-65 112 (a) Written description 1-20, 24- 51, 55-65 1-6, 20, 28- 37, 51, 59 103 Fang, Beharie, Ko 1-6, 20, 28- 37, 51, 59 7-11, 38-42 103 Fang, Beharie, Rizzo 7-11, 38-42 13, 14, 44, 45 103 Fang, Beharie, Rizzo, Kim ‘284, Yamaki 13, 14, 44, 45 15-19, 46-50 103 Fang, Beharie, Rizzo, Anderson 15-19, 46-50 24, 55 103 Fang, Beharie, Stoakley, Hanazaki 24, 55 25, 56 103 Fang, Beharie, Tsubotani 25, 56 26, 57 103 Fang, Beharie, Kim ‘648 26, 57 27, 58 103 Fang, Beharie, Kim ‘648, Weiner 27, 58 60-65 103 Fang, Beharie, Ko, Sung 60-65 Overall Outcome 1-20, 24-51, 55-65 Appeal 2020-005599 Application 15/171,192 14 TIME PERIOD FOR REPSONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2019). AFFIRMED