Ex Parte Cooksey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2017

13435733 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2017)

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.
13/435,733 03/30/2012 Tom COOKSEY JRL-613-169 1072
23117 7590 11/14/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
VU, KHOA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOM COOKSEY, JON ERIK OTERHALS, J0RN NYSTAD,
LARS ERICSSON, EIVIND LILAND, and DAREN CROXFORD
Appeal 2017-003785
Application 13/435,733
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—19, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ARM Limited. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003785
Application 13/435,733
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to displaying
windows for a graphical user interface on a display and “in particular to
methods and apparatus for use when composing windows in a compositing
window system.” Spec. 1:12—15.2 The Specification explains that in a
compositing window system, a version of a window for an application is
written into a window buffer and when an updated version of the window is
written into a window buffer, the content of the updated version is compared
to the content of the previous version of the window in the window buffer to
determine what has changed. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
1. A method of displaying windows on a display,
comprising:
writing windows to be displayed to respective window
buffers for storing the windows when the windows are
generated; and
then writing the windows from their respective window
buffers to a frame buffer to combine the windows for display;
the method further comprising:
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed March 30, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed January 4, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed August 2,
2016; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 26, 2016; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 27, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-003785
Application 13/435,733
when a new version of a window to be displayed is
generated and stored in a window buffer for writing to and
combining in the frame buffer:
comparing the content of the new version of said window
in the window buffer to the content of the version of said
window in the window buffer that was written to and combined
in the frame buffer to show said window in its current form on
the display;
using said comparison of the content of the new version
of said window in the window buffer to the content of the
version of said window in the window buffer that was written to
and combined in the frame buffer to show said window in its
current form on the display to identify regions of the version of
said window in the window buffer that was written to and
combined in the frame buffer whose content has changed in the
new version of said window; and
determining the regions of the new version of said
window to write to the frame buffer in order to display the new
version of said window on the display on the basis of those
regions of the new version of said window that have been
identified as having changed content using said comparison of
the content of the new version of said window in the window
buffer to the content of the version of said window in the
window buffer that was written to and combined in the frame
buffer to show said window in its current form on the display.
App. Br. 21—22 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Loucks et al. US 5,241,656 Aug. 31, 1993
(“Loucks”)
Hochmuth et al. US 2003/0080971 Al May 1, 2003
(“Hochmuth”)
Paquette US 2005/0168471 Al Aug. 4, 2005
3
Appeal 2017-003785
Application 13/435,733
US 2007/0257925 A1 Nov. 8, 2007
US 2008/0002894 A1 Jan. 3, 2008
US 2012/0176386 A1 July 12, 2012
(filed Jan. 9, 2012)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Brunner, Loucks, Hayon, and Paquette. Final
Act. 2—19; Ans. 2—17.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 11—13, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Brunner, Loucks, Hayon, Paquette, and
Hochmuth. Final Act. 19—27; Ans. 17—24.
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brunner, Loucks, and Hutchins. Final Act. 27—28;
Ans. 24—25.
Brunner et al.
(“Brunner”)
Hayon et al.
(“Hayon”)
Hutchins
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—19 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before
us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of the
references teach or suggest a comparison of window-buffer content
according to independent claims 1,10, and 19.
4
Appeal 2017-003785
Application 13/435,733
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 16, 18, and 19
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,10,
and 19 because:
[n]one of the four references teach comparing the content of the
new version of a window to be written to and combined in the
frame buffer in the window buffer to the content of the version
of that same window in the window buffer that was written to
and combined in the frame buffer to show the window in its
current form on the display.
Reply Br. 10. Appellants assert that “[t]he Examiner admits that [the
primary reference] Brunner lacks many of the features recited in claim 1”
including the “comparing” step. App. Br. 11; see Reply Br. 3. Appellants
then address the secondary references Loucks, Paquette, and Hayon.
Appellants contend that “Loucks does not compare two different
versions of the same window.” App. Br. 11. Appellants also contend that
Loucks’ comparisons of (1) window identification integers and (2) Z-buffer
depth values do not compare the content of two different versions of the
same window. Reply Br. 4—5.
Appellants assert that Paquette “merely describe[s] conventional
[window] compositing with the additional feature that the compositor can
accumulate content from a classic frame buffer.” App. Br. 14. Appellants
further assert that “Paquette’s ‘newer-style application’ and ‘classic
windows’ cannot be manned to the content of a new version of a window in
the window buffer being compared to the content of an older version of the
same window in the window buffer” as the older version existed before
writing to a frame buffer for display. Reply Br. 10; see App. Br. 14—15.
In addition, Appellants contend that Hayon “does not disclose or
suggest multiple, currently captured frames (multiple windows in multiple
5
Appeal 2017-003785
Application 13/435,733
window buffers) which are written to the reference frame and combined for
display.” App. Br. 12; see Reply Br. 6—7. Appellants point out that the
“[t]he claimed comparison is between two sets of data representing what has
been rendered to a window buffer” and “does not involve data representing
what is actually stored in the frame buffer and being displayed.” App.
Br. 12. Appellants explain that the claimed comparison involves “two sets
of ‘source’ data for different versions of the same window” because “two
sets of ‘source’ data is required for a window compositing system because
what is actually being displayed for the window in the frame buffer may be
different, e.g., due to scaling.” Reply Br. 7. Appellants distinguish the
claimed comparison from Hayon’s comparison because “Hayon compares a
currently-captured frame and a frame that is stored in the frame buffer.” Id.
Based on the record before us, we are constrained to agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited
portions of the references, either alone or in combination, teach or suggest a
comparison of window-buffer content according to claims 1,10, and 19, i.e.,
a comparison of “the content of the new version of said window in the
window buffer to the content of the version of said window in the window
buffer that was written to and combined in the frame buffer to show said
window in its current form on the display.” Hence, we do not sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1,10, and 19.
Claims 7 and 9 depend from claim 1, while claims 16 and 18 depend
from claim 10. For the reasons discussed regarding the independent claims,
we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims.
6
Appeal 2017-003785
Application 13/435,733
The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 2—6, 8, 11—15, and 17
Claims 2—6 and 8 depend from claim 1, while claims 11—15 and 17
depend from claim 10. Based on the record before us, the Examiner has not
shown how the additionally cited secondary references—Hochmuth and
Hutchins—overcome the deficiency discussed above for claims 1 and 10.
Consequently, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejections of claims 2—6, 8,
11—15, and 17.
Because these determinations resolve the appeal with respect to
claims 1—19, we need not address Appellants’ other arguments regarding
Examiner error. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a
decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19.
REVERSED
7