Ex Parte Arcese et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13625133 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
13/625,133 09/24/2012 Mauro Arcese DE920110061US1 4354
37945 7590 12/30/2016
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. KIM, DONG U
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAURO ARCESE, LUCA GIMONDO, MARCO IMPERIA, and
STEFANO MANOCCHIO
Appeal 2015-008081
Application 13/625,133
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1 and 7—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-008081
Application 13/625,133
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates generally to application switching in an
operating system and an application switching unit. Spec. 1:14—16.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for application switching in an operating
system, the method comprising:
providing at least two active applications on the operating
system;
providing a first list of actions related to the first active
application, via a first interface, to an application switching
manager, and providing a second list of actions related to the
second active application, via a second interface, to the
application switching manager;
selecting, using a graphical user interface, an active
application out of the at least two active applications together
with selecting an action selected from the first list of actions for
the first application or a second action from the second list of
actions for the second application, wherein selecting the active
application comprises traversing graphically in an application
switching direction through graphical representations of the at
least two active applications based on a select application signal,
and wherein selecting the action comprises traversing
graphically through a graphical representation of the list of
actions for an associated application of the at least two
applications, wherein a respective action traversal direction is
different to the application switching direction; and
responsive to selecting the active application together with
the action, (i) invoking the selected active application and (ii)
invoking the selected action for the selected active application,
wherein each action is associated with a command executable by
the respective active application of the at least two applications,
by executing the command immediately after selecting the active
application in order to invoke the selected action for the selected
active application.
2
Appeal 2015-008081
Application 13/625,133
References and Rejection
Claims 1 and 7—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jarrett (US 2009/0193364, Al, Jul. 30, 2009), Korkonen
(US 2012/0216146 Al, Aug. 23, 2012) and Matthews, III
(US 2002/0085042 Al, Jul. 4, 2002).
ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1 and 7—10
A. Whether Korkonen Teaches Selecting an Application Together
With Selecting an Action Corresponding to that Application
Claim 1 recites “selecting, using a graphical user interface, an active
application out of the at least two active applications together with selecting
an action selected from the first list of actions for the first application or a
second action from the second list of actions for the second application.”
App. Br. 17 (Claims Appx.) The Examiner finds Korkonen teaches or
suggests the above limitations by disclosing a set of active applications and
virtual keys associated with each active application that effect functions of
the active application. Final Act. 6 (citing Korkonen, Figs. 4—6,142). The
Examiner further finds that the “virtual keys are displayed on the display
area with or without user invoking/enabling the virtual keys.” Ans. 4—5
(citing Korkonen 142 (“However, the virtual keys may also be hidden or not
present until a user indicates an application to which they would like to
effect a change.”)). And finally, the Examiner finds Figure 4 of Korkonen
illustrates active application icons with an “X” and “in response to selecting
‘X’ it selects the corresponding application and executes the command to
3
Appeal 2015-008081
Application 13/625,133
close the corresponding application without further user invocation.” Ans.
6.
Appellants argue Korkonen does not teach or suggest selecting an
active application together with an action. In particular, Appellants argue
Korkonen’s virtual keys are displayed “in response to a user action such as
invoking/enabling an application, where a user then has to subsequently and
manually press/invoke one of these display virtual keys in a second selection
in order to invoke the related action (Korkonen paragraph [0043], lines 6-
8).” App. Br. 8. Thus, Appellants assert, because the user has to invoke a
virtual key subsequent to selecting an application, Korkonen does not teach
selecting an active application “together with the action . . . .” App. Br. 8.
Moreover, Appellants argue the Examiner’s finding that Korkonen’s virtual
keys are displayed without the user invoking the keys “ignores the fact to
invoke an action associated with the displayed virtual keys, a user has to
subsequently and manually ‘select’ one of the displayed virtual keys that is
not described as being performed ‘together with’ another ‘selection.’” Reply
Br. 3. Appellants further argue that because Korkonen does not teach or
suggest selecting an active application together with an action, the Examiner
has failed to articulate a reason with a rational underpinning to support the
conclusion of obviousness. App. Br. 9.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Korkonen’s disclosure of selecting an X on an icon of an
active application teaches selecting an application together with selecting an
action to close the application without further user invocation. Appellants
do not rebut this finding with particularity and therefore their argument is
unpersuasive.
4
Appeal 2015-008081
Application 13/625,133
B. Whether Matthews Teaches Selecting an Action by Traversing
Through a List of Actions in a Direction Different to the
Application Switching Direction
Appellants argue Matthews does not teach or suggest “selecting the
action comprises traversing graphically through a graphical representation of
the list of actions for an associated application of the at least two
applications, wherein a respective action traversal direction is different to the
application switching direction.” In particular, Appellants argue Matthews
“describes two applications that are already running, and their respective
selectable options—and not the actual ‘selection’ of applications.” App. Br.
10. Appellants further argue that because Matthews describes selecting an
action with a remote control, rather than with a mouse or pointing device,
Matthews is unable to provide the claimed different directional features of
the claim.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’ argument
that Matthew does not teach the actual selection of applications attacks
Matthews individually and fails to address the Examiner’s findings as a
whole. The Examiner finds Korkonen teaches horizontal traversal of an
application switching device and selection of applications. Final Act. 6;
Ans. 10. The Examiner finds Matthews teaches vertical traversal of options
in menus of active applications. Final Act. 8. Combining the two teachings,
the Examiner finds Matthews and Korkonen together teach selecting an
application by traversing horizontally through the applications, and selecting
an action by traversing vertically through the actions. Moreover,
Appellants’ argument that Matthews does not disclose traversing a list of
actions in a direction different than an application switching direction
because Matthews’ actions are selected with remote control buttons rather
5
Appeal 2015-008081
Application 13/625,133
than with a mouse, ignores the fact that Matthews’ remote control has
directional arrow buttons used to traverse through lists of menu options. See
Matthews Fig. 4, || 51, 78. This is similar to Appellants’ Specification
describing using the arrow buttons on a keyboard to traverse through a
vertical list of actions for a corresponding application. See Spec. 8:15—29;
15:31-16:8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7—10, which were argued together
with claim 1. See App. Br. 7—12.
II. Claim 11
Appellants argue “In paragraph [0042], Korkonen describes
displaying virtual keys, and does not describe any action/step performed by
an actual ‘operating system’, such as an ‘operating system’ querying an
active application to ascertain a list of actions, as claimed.” App. Br. 14.
Appellants further argue that even if applications depend upon an operating
system, this “‘dependency’ does not describe a specific ‘querying’
step/action performed.” Reply Br. 6. Appellants further argue that the
Examiner’s finding that an “OS must be leveraged to load the context menu
from memory by querying that active application” is “pure speculation that
is not supported by objective evidence since Korkonen does not explicitly
state/teach such OS ‘query’ functionality.” Reply Br. 6.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. We agree with Appellants that
Korkonen does not explicitly teach an operating system querying an
application to ascertain the list of actions corresponding to that application.
Although we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that an operating system is foundational software on
6
Appeal 2015-008081
Application 13/625,133
which applications depend, the Examiner has not established that this
necessitates an operating system querying the application to ascertain the list
of actions. As Appellants point out, there could be other ways in which the
actions could be displayed which do not involve the operating system
querying the application. Further, the Examiner has not established with
citations to any evidence that querying applications for their actions by an
operating system was within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
art.
Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
III. Claims 12—15
Appellants argue Jarrett “does not teach the claimed ‘together with’
selecting action ... it cannot possibly teach how such ‘together with’
selecting action is actually performed.” App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 7
(“This application ‘switching’ is not described as being performed using
dual-pronged ‘selecting’ steps/actions, where a ‘selecting’ of an ‘active
application’ is performed together with the ‘selecting’ of an ‘action . . . .’”)
We are unpersuaded by Appellants argument. Appellants make
largely the same argument as they did for claim 1, namely that the prior art
does not teach selecting an application together with selecting an action
corresponding to that application. As the Examiner points out, Korkonen
teaches selecting an application together with selecting an action. Ans. 14.
Jarrett is relied upon to teach the selecting can be carried out using a
plurality of concurrently performed user gestures. Final Act. 10—11.
Appellants do not rebut this finding with particularity.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12—15.
7
Appeal 2015-008081
Application 13/625,133
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 7—10, and 12—15 are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8