Ex Parte Anderson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201713227084 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/227,084 09/07/2011 Bret P. Anderson 333813-US-NP 4824 69316 7590 03/01/2017 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER COBB, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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): u sdocket @ micro soft .com chriochs @microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRET P. ANDERSON, TSZ YAN WONG, and WEI-TING HSIAO Appeal 2016-004167 Application 13/227,0841 Technology Center 2600 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Non-Final rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—22, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants’ Brief (Br.) identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Corporation. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-004167 Application 13/227,084 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to the use of multiple display device taskbars in a multi-display device environment. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory devices storing computer readable program instructions that, responsive to execution by the one or more processors, cause a display environment of a computing device to display and support elements including: a first taskbar for display on a first display device of the display environment, the first taskbar configured to include a representation of a plurality of applications that are executed by the computing device; and a second taskbar for display on a second display device of the display environment, the second taskbar configured to include: a representation of at least one said application that corresponds to a user interface configured for output on the second display device and does not include a representation of another said application that corresponds to a user interface configured for output on the first display device; and a representation for each said application that corresponds to a user interface configured for output concurrently spanning more than one display device, the representation displaying when chrome of the user interface output is displayed on the secondary display device. Br. 35 (Claims Appendix). According to claim 1, a display environment on a computer system includes a first taskbar and a second taskbar. The first and second taskbars may be, for example, Windows® taskbars which include representations of applications running on the displays. See, e.g., Spec. Fig. 2, item 202. The first task bar is displayed on a first display 2 Appeal 2016-004167 Application 13/227,084 device, and the second task bar is displayed on a second display device. The second taskbar is configured such that it only includes representations of applications being output on the second display, and does not include representations of applications being output on the first display. Spec. Fig. 6, block 604. In addition, and of particular relevance on this appeal, the second task bar is also configured such that when an application is concurrently displayed so that it extends from one display into the other (i.e., “concurrently spans more than one display device”), the second task bar includes a representation of that application when the chrome of the user interface for the application is displayed on the second display. Spec. 38— 39. Also on appeal are independent claims 8 and 16. Although different in scope from claim 1, and argued separately by Appellants in their Brief, these claims also recite limitations relating to the display of applications concurrently spanning more than one display device on a second taskbar. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Balasubramanian US 2008/0046832 A1 Feb. 21,2008 Hebbar US 2014/0033086 A1 Jan. 30, 2014 DisplayFusion — Help, retrieved from http://web.archive.Org/20100831222604/http://www.displayfiision.com/ Help/, 2010 (“DisplayFusion”) Realtime Soft UltraMon, retrieved from http://web.archive.com/web /20100102003309/http://www.realtimesoft .com/ultramon/, 2010 (“UltraMon”) .NET Framework Class Library — ScreenMembers (System.Windows.Forms), retrieved from 3 Appeal 2016-004167 Application 13/227,084 http://web.archive.Org/web/20090907072647/http://msdn.microsoft.com/ en-us/library/system.windows.forms.screen_members/, 2009 (“MSDN”) REJECTIONS Claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian, DisplayFusion, UltraMon, Hebbar, and MSDN. Non-Final Act. 3. ISSUES FOR DECISION (1) Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or suggest a second taskbar configured to include: a representation for each said application that corresponds to a user interface configured for output concurrently spanning more than one display device, the representation displaying when chrome of the user interface output is displayed on the secondary display device, as recited in independent claim 1? (2) Has the Examiner erred in finding it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of MSDN with Balasubramanian, DisplayFusion, UltraMon, and Hebbar? ANALYSIS First Issue In rejecting the claims, the Examiner concludes the combined teachings of Balasubramanian, DisplayFusion, UltraMon, Hebbar, and MDSN render claim 1 obvious. Non-Final Act. 3—10. Appellants argue the Examiner’s analysis fails to demonstrate the cited combination teaches or suggests any “user interface configured for output concurrently spanning more than one display device.” Br. 13. Appellants contend the first four references included in the cited 4 Appeal 2016-004167 Application 13/227,084 combination—Balasubramanian, UltraMon, DisplayFusion, and Hebbar—do not teach or suggest this limitation. Br. 14. Appellants further contend the Examiner appears, without specifically acknowledging doing so, to have improperly relied on Official Notice in finding the prior art teaches “output concurrently spanning more than one display device,” pointing to the following statement made by the Examiner: In addition to the teachings of Balasubramanian in view of DisplayFusion, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that a user interface could have been configured to display on more than one display, since it was known in the art that application windows can be displayed across multiple monitors. Br. 14 {citing Non-Final Act. 5—6). Appellants also argue MSDN does not teach the disputed limitation, asserting its teachings are limited to “[identifying a screen containing the largest portion of an object, control, or rectangle and identifying a screen containing a point where a mouse was clicked.” Br. 16. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found both DisplayFusion and UltraMon teach moving an application window from one monitor to another, a process during which the application spans across two display devices. Non-Final Act. 4—5 (citing DisplayFusion 30); 6 (citing UltraMon 4 12). The Examiner provides additional explanation and findings regarding MSDN in the Answer: The addition [of] MSDN specifically illustrates different approaches one of ordinary skill in the art could take in order to determine which display in a multidisplay environment contains the specified portion of the user interface/window. For instance, the FromControl method allows one of ordinary skill in the art to determine which screen contains the largest portion of the 5 Appeal 2016-004167 Application 13/227,084 specified control, while the FromHandle allows one of ordinary skill in the art to determine which display contains the largest portion of the object referred to by the specified handle. In order to determine which display contains the largest portion of a specified control, the user interface would be configured to concurrently display on multiple displays. MSDN allows a programmer to specify at which point (such as when the majority of a user interface is on the secondary display) the chrome of the user interface is considered on the secondary display and at that point display the representation for the application corresponding to the user interface on the second taskbar. Ans. 43. We not persuaded that the Examiner erred because Appellants’ arguments do not address all of the Examiner’s findings, and particularly those made by the Examiner in the Answer with respect to the recited “second taskbar for display on a second display device.”2 The Examiner explains, and we agree, DisplayFusion teaches a “taskbar mode” in which taskbars on each display in a multi-display system can be customized to display only those applications open on each respective display. Ans. 41—42 (citing DisplayFusion 25). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that DisplayFusion teaches dragging or moving applications from one monitor to another in a multi-display environment. Id. (citing DisplayFusion 31). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, UltraMon teaches that taskbars can be added to each secondary monitor in a multi-display environment, Ans. 42 (citing UltraMon 2,12), and those taskbars can be configured to show only those applications being displayed on the monitor associated with the taskbar. The cited page in UltraMon describes a “Smart 2 We note Appellants did not file a Reply Brief. 6 Appeal 2016-004167 Application 13/227,084 Taskbar” feature in which “UltraMon adds an additional taskbar for each secondary monitor, and each taskbar only shows tasks from the monitor it is on.” UltraMon 2. The Examiner further cites Hebbar as evidence that the term “chrome” were understood in the art to include graphical elements such as windows, buttons, menus and scroll bars. Ans. 42. We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of “chrome,” and find it supported by the teachings of Hebbar. See Hebbar, Abstract. The Examiner additionally finds, and we agree, MSDN teaches FromControl and FromHandle methods that determine the display containing the largest portion of specified controls and specified objects, respectively. Ans. 42. According to the Examiner, MSDN provides evidence that determining which display contains the larger portion of an application window was known in the art at the time the invention was made. Ans. 43. The Examiner also addresses Appellants’ allegation of improper official notice, explaining how MSDN teaches or suggests displaying applications across multiple monitors:3 In order to determine which display contains the largest portion of a specified control, the user interface would be configured to concurrently display on multiple displays. MSDN allows a programmer to specific at which point (such as when the majority of a user interface is on the secondary display) the chrome of the user interface is considered on the secondary display and at that point display the representation for the application corresponding to the user interface on the second taskbar. 3 Although we do not rely on it in affirming the Examiner’s rejection, we also note UltraMon explicitly teaches applications spanning multiple displays. UltraMon 3 (“You can also easily maximize a window to the desktop [stretch it across all monitors].”). 7 Appeal 2016-004167 Application 13/227,084 Ans. 43 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that MSDN at least suggests applications spanning across multiple displays. Otherwise, there would be little purpose for providing the FromControl and FromHandle methods described by MSDN. Accordingly, and in light of the Examiner’s additional findings and explanation, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in finding the cited combination teaches or suggests each limitation recited in claim 1. Second Issue Appellants also attack the Examiner’s rationale for combining the cited references because it “relies on information gleaned solely from Appellant’s specification” and thus constitutes the use of impermissible hindsight. Br. 17—19. More specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner failed to provide a valid reason for combining the teachings of MSDN with Balasubramanian, DisplayFusion, UltraMon, and Hebbar because they only “discuss display environments where a user interface window is configured for display on a single display screen.” Br. 18. We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred by including MSDN in the combination. As we noted above, the Examiner correctly finds both DisplayFusion and UltraMon teach applications concurrently spanning more than one display device because while moving applications from one monitor to another, the application would span across the two monitors. Thus, Appellants’ contention that the references only relate to user interface windows configured for display on a single display screen is not supported by the evidence, undercutting the factual premise upon which their argument against the proposed combination is based. 8 Appeal 2016-004167 Application 13/227,084 Moreover, and as we explained above, we find the Examiner correctly found that (1) it was known in the prior art to include applications in the taskbar of the display device displaying the application; (2) it was also known that applications could concurrently span across multiple displays, and (3) MSDN demonstrates that it was known to determine which display contains portions of an application window spanning across multiple displays. Possessing this knowledge, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have sought to represent these concurrently spanning applications in display taskbars. There are a finite number of ways for an application concurrently spanning multiple displays to be represented in display taskbars. For example, an application concurrently spanning multiple displays could be represented in (1) both taskbars, (2) the taskbar in the monitor from which the application was initially launched, (3) the taskbar in the monitor that displays the primary portion of the application window, or (4) the taskbar in the monitor that displays the user interface controls (i.e., the chrome) for the application. Given the finite number of choices available for representing multiple display-spanning applications, we agree with the Examiner it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art to implement the approaches reflected in Appellants’ claims. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.”) Accordingly, we find the Examiners rationale for combining the references to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 9 Appeal 2016-004167 Application 13/227,084 Remaining Claims Appellants present separate arguments for patentability of independent claims 8 and 16. See Br. 20-26 (arguments for claim 8), 27—33 (arguments for claim 16). However, we do not find these arguments to be materially different from the arguments presented in connection with claim 1, and are not persuaded by these arguments for the same reasons discussed above. Appellants present no separate arguments regarding dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9—12, 14, 15, and 17—22, and these claims fall with their respective independent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—22, is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation