Bas Ording et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 1, 2019

12907986 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)

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.
12/907,986 10/19/2010 Bas Ording 106842054400
(P10101US1)
3004
161038 7590 08/01/2019
Apple c/o Kubota & Basol LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suite 2140
Los Angeles, CA 90071
EXAMINER
BURWELL, JOSEPH R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2019 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):
docket@kuba-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BAS ORDING and JOHN O. LOUCH
____________________

Appeal 2018-001442
Application 12/907,986
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–4, 8–12, 16–19, and 21–32. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral argument in this appeal on July 22, 2019.
We reverse.

Appeal 2018-001442
Application 12/907,986

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application “relates generally to managing virtual
workspaces on a computing device.” Specification ¶ 1, filed October 19,
2010 (“Spec.”). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method performed by one or more processors executing
on a computer system with a display and one or more input
devices, the method comprising:
displaying, on the display, a user interface including a
plurality of application windows associated with a virtual
workspace;
while the user interface including the plurality of
application windows associated with the virtual workspace is
displayed, receiving user input, via the one or more input
devices, indicating a request to display the plurality of
application windows associated with the virtual workspace
grouped in accordance with common functionality into a
plurality of clusters including a first cluster and a second cluster,
wherein the plurality of application windows are automatically
grouped based on automatic determination of a common
functionality of the application windows; and
in response to receiving the user input and independent of
any other user input, updating the user interface to:
visually group the plurality of application windows
associated with the virtual workspace into the plurality of
clusters, the first cluster corresponding to one or more
application windows sharing a first common functionality,
and the second cluster corresponding to one or more
application windows sharing a second common
functionality;
add a first visual indication of an identity of the first
common functionality overlapping at least a portion of the
first cluster of one or more windows; and
add a second visual indication of an identity of the
second common functionality overlapping at least a
portion of the second cluster of one or more windows.
Appeal 2018-001442
Application 12/907,986

3
Appeal Brief 25, filed March 22, 2017 (“App. Br.”).
REJECTION
Claims Basis Reference
1–4, 8–12, 16–19, and
21–32 § 102(b) Horvitz
1

DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving the user input and
independent of any other user input, updating the user interface to,” among
other things, “visually group the plurality of application windows associated
with the virtual workspace into the plurality of clusters, the first cluster
corresponding to one or more application windows sharing a first common
functionality, and the second cluster corresponding to one or more
application windows sharing a second common functionality.” App. Br. 25.
The Examiner found that Horvitz discloses these limitations because
Horvitz describes user inputs such as keyboard commands and gestures and
shows “two sets of windows visually grouped together by different shared
functionality.” Final Office Action 6, mailed June 6, 2016 (“Final Act.”); see
also Answer 17–18, mailed September 22, 2017 (“Ans.”). The Examiner
also relied on Horvitz’s disclosure that “when a user moves window(s) into a
periphery region, the window(s) shrinks down in size” and “[w]indows in
the periphery can be grouped together into named tasks, and task switching
can be accomplished with a single mouse click.” Ans. 21–22 (emphases
omitted) (quoting Horvitz 2:20–22, 2:25–28).

1 Horvitz et al. (US 7,386,801 B1; June 10, 2008).
Appeal 2018-001442
Application 12/907,986

4
Appellants argue that although the cited parts of Horvitz show “a
display of windows that are configured as clusters” and describe “generic
input-output behaviors,” these parts of Horvitz do not disclose “grouping
windows into a plurality of clusters in response to user input” independent of
any other user input. App. Br. 13, 14; Reply Brief 3, filed November 21,
2017 (“Reply Br.”). Appellants contend that these general disclosures do not
anticipate the specific acts and relationships specified in the disputed
limitations. See App. Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 2–4.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The disputed limitations
require visually grouping the plurality of application windows associated
with the virtual workspace into the plurality of clusters in response to
received user input, independent of any other input. Although the cited parts
of Horvitz generally describe user inputs and show groups of windows, these
parts of Horvitz do not explicitly disclose generating the groups of windows
in response to received user input, independent of any other input as required
by the limitations at issue. See, e.g., Horvitz 2:6–30, 17:37, Fig. 43b. As a
result, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims. Because the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims
9 and 17 suffer from similar flaws, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of these claims and their respective dependent claims.

Appeal 2018-001442
Application 12/907,986

5
DECISION
Claims
Rejected Basis Reference Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–12,
16–19, and
21–32
§ 102(b) Horvitz
1–4, 8–12,
16–19, and
21–32
Outcome
1–4, 8–12,
16–19, and
21–32

REVERSED