Ex Parte Dang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2006

09934945 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte NGA T. DANG

Appeal No. 2006-1627
Application No. 09/934,945
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before HAIRSTON, BARRY, and MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 12 through 35.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system in which an applet
simultaneously displays first and second windows outside of the constraints of a browser
application window.
Claim 12 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
12. A computer implemented method for displaying multiple windows comprising:

a browser application on a computer executing an applet;

the applet displaying a first window outside of the browser application’s window
constraints using a class, wherein the class comprises elements that make a window displayed by
Appeal No. 2006-1627
Application No. 09/934,945

2
the applet look like an executing application; and
the applet displaying a second window outside of the browser application’s window
constraints simultaneously with the first window using the class.

The references relied on by the examiner are:
Razavi et al. (Razavi) 6,401,134 June 4, 2002
(filed July 25, 1997)
Nguyen et al. (Nguyen) 6,412,021 June 25, 2002
(filed Feb. 26, 1998)

Claims 12 through 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Razavi in view of Nguyen.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION

We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 12 through 15, 17 through 23, 25 through 31 and 33 through 35,
and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 16, 24 and 32.
Razavi describes a method and system in which an applet displays a window 420 outside
of the constraints of the browser application window 410 via the use of a class (Figure 4;
Abstract; column 3, lines 13 through 18; column 3, line 66 through column 4, line 30; column 5,
lines 1 through 20).
With respect to the teachings of Razavi, the examiner makes the following findings
(answer, page 5):

Appeal No. 2006-1627
Application No. 09/934,945

3

Since the applet functions as any ordinary application window on
the desktop, and that the applet components includes dialog boxes
and pop-up windows (1:42-44, 8:59-62), it inherently appears that
applet have [sic, the applet has] the functionality of displaying a
second window simultaneously (i.e., the second window is
displayed while, during the applet window is displayed) with the
applet window. I.e., any “ordinary application window” may have
sub-windows its hierarchy. . . . Although Razavi clearly discloses
that the applet has the functionality of simultaneously displaying
the second window as set forth above, Razavi fails to clearly teach
the displaying of the second window.

Although Razavi does not expressly state that a second applet window is displayed, we
find that a dialog box as well as a pop-up window described in Razavi will produce a second
applet window displayed on the applet window1, albeit not as large as the applet window. Such
a second window is required by the claims on appeal to be outside of the browser application
window, but not outside of the applet window. We additionally find that Nguyen expressly
states that an applet displays a small pop-up window or dialog box in conjunction with the applet
display (column 9, lines 46 through 55; column 12, lines 20 through 34). The teachings of
Nguyen are, therefore, merely cumulative to the teachings of Razavi. In view of the teachings of
Razavi and Nguyen, we disagree with appellant’s arguments (reply brief, pages 5 and 6) that
neither reference teaches an applet that simultaneously displays a second window. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 12, 20 and 28 is sustained based upon the teachings of Razavi
and Nguyen. The obviousness rejection of claims 13 through 15, 21 through 23 and 29 through

1 In the prior art described in Razavi, the pop-up window or dialog box was constrained to be inside the application
window (column 1, lines 40 through 44). When the separate applet window is created, the pop-up window or dialog
box is created over the applet window (column 8, line 59 through column 9, line 3).
Appeal No. 2006-1627
Application No. 09/934,945

4
31 is likewise sustained because appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for
these claims apart from the patentability arguments presented for claims 12, 20 and 28.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 16, 24 and 32, we agree with the
appellant’s argument (brief, page 10; reply brief, page 7) that “[w]hen the applet is executed
again by the browser, only one window can be reopened.” Neither the pop-up window nor the
dialog box in Razavi is part of the history of the applet (column 3, lines 23 through 25; column
6, lines 41 through 45; column 8, lines 15 through 18), and neither window would be reopened
when the browser executes the applet again. Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims
16, 24 and 32 is reversed.
In the obviousness rejection of claims 17, 25 and 33, appellant argues (brief, page 11)
“[n]owhere does Razavi teach that the windows remain open when the browser switches to a
new web site; on the contrary, Razavi teaches that the application closes these windows, and
automatically closes the applet as well.” Appellant’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding,
we agree with the examiner’s position (answer, page 4) that “[t]he applet window continues . . .
open after the user switches to a new web site (7:45-45 [sic, 47]),” and that “[a]ll windows are
closed responsive to an exit (CLOSE) command (7:50-55).” Based upon the teachings of
Razavi, the obviousness rejection of claims 17, 25 and 33 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 18, 26 and 34 is sustained because the pop-up
window or dialog box will provide information to respond to an event or status displayed in the
applet window.
Appeal No. 2006-1627
Application No. 09/934,945

5
The obviousness rejection of claims 19, 27 and 35 is sustained because the applet in
Razavi can monitor hardware/software at two locations when the URL of a new host is accessed
with the applet still running (column 7, lines 45 through 47).
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 12 through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed as to claims 12 through 15, 17 through 23, 25 through 31 and 33 through 35, and is
reversed as to claims 16, 24 and 32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )

KWH/rwk
Appeal No. 2006-1627
Application No. 09/934,945

6
JAMES M. STOVER
MCR CORPORATION
1700 SOUTH PATTERSON BLVD, WHQ4
DAYTON, OH 45479