Ex Parte Coutts

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2017

11836293 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 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.
11/836,293 08/09/2007 Daryl David Coutts MRG0001US 2964
23413 7590 01/27/2017
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P
EXAMINER
20 Church Street TILLERY, RASHAWN N
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARYL DAVID COUTTS
Appeal 2016-000629
Application 11/836,293
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 20—24 and 27—30, constituting all claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-000629
Application 11/836,293
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to displaying pushed and pulled
information, specifically notifications, on a computing device. Spec, 3, 7.
Claim 20, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
20. A method of handling notifications to a user of a
computing device, the method implemented in a first
application program executing on the computing device, the
method comprising:
receiving a first notification from a second application
program and responsive to receiving the first notification,
integrating a first headline into a sequence of headlines wherein
the first headline corresponds to the first notification and
wherein the first headline comprises a first time indication and
wherein the first time indication is based on the time when the
first notification is received and wherein the first headline
comprises at least five characters;
receiving a second notification and responsive to
receiving the second notification, integrating a second headline
into the sequence of headlines, wherein the second headline
corresponds to the second notification and wherein the second
headline comprises a second time indication and wherein the
second time indication is based on the time when the second
notification is received and wherein the second headline
comprises at least five characters;
receiving a third notification and responsive to receiving
the third notification, integrating a third headline into the
sequence of headlines wherein the third headline corresponds to
the third notification and wherein the third headline comprises a
third time indication and wherein the third time indication is
based on the time when the third notification is received and
wherein the third headline comprises at least five characters;
displaying the sequence of headlines in a first window on
a display associated with the computing device, the displaying
2
Appeal 2016-000629
Application 11/836,293
such that headlines with later time indications are displayed
above headlines with earlier time indications in the plane of the
display and wherein the displaying is such that the first, second
and third headlines are visible in the first window and wherein
the displayed sequence of headlines is scrollable by the user;
and
receiving a plurality of indications of user interaction
with the displayed sequence of headlines and responsive to
reception of a first indication of user interaction with the first
headline, signaling the second application program wherein the
second application program responds to the signaling by
causing a second window to be displayed on the display by an
application program other than the first application program and
wherein the second window is displayed in a different area on
the display than the first window and wherein the displayed
sequence of headlines is still visible.
REJECTIONS
Claims 20-24 and 27—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Cheung et al. (US 2004/0061716
Al; published Apr. 1, 2004) (“Cheung”), Awada et al. (US 2007/0101289
Al; published May 3, 2007) (“Awada”), and Kang et al. (US 2002/0152220
Al; published Oct. 17, 2002) (“Kang”).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends “[a]t the time of Cheung’s invention (September
2002), Cheung already had knowledge of the feature of displaying a list of
messages with corresponding receipt time indications.” Br. 4. Appellant
further contends “Cheung had knowledge of the feature described by Kang
but did not use it.” Br. 5. Appellant argues “[i]f it was obvious to Cheung
3
Appeal 2016-000629
Application 11/836,293
to display a receipt time indication on his notifications he surely would have
included such.” Br. 5, emphasis omitted.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The test for
obviousness is not what Cheung would have done based on the teachings of
Kang (or even Microsoft Outlook). Rather, the test is what one of ordinary
skill in the art would have done based on the combined teachings of the
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]h ie test [for
obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). The appeal does not
involve a question of what might have been obvious to Cheung. Rather, the
issue is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious in view
of Cheung, Kang, and A wada at the time applicants (not Cheung) made the
claimed invention.
As Appellant admits, in 2001 and earlier, Outlook included a feature
of displaying a list of email messages with corresponding receipt time
indications. See Br. 4. Kang, likewise, describes displaying messages
ordered based on date and time. Kang H 31, 32, 36. Appellant’s Figure lb
depicts a prior art event log displaying events based on descending date and
time. Spec. Fig. lb. On this record, displaying messages or other
information based upon date or time ordering seems to be a conventional
technique. The reason Cheung did not discuss displaying notifications by
receipt time indication is not relevant.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 20, and dependent claims 21—24 and 27—30, which were
not separately argued, for the same reasons.
4
Appeal 2016-000629
Application 11/836,293
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20—24 and
27—30 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5