Ex Parte Gargi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2009

10232443 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ULLAS GARGI
________________

Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443
Technology Center 2400
________________

Decided: July 31, 20091
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JEAN R. HOMERE, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 20, 22 through 26, 28 through 45, and 47
through 54. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Application program sharing systems, processing devices and
application program sharing methods are described. According
to one aspect, an application program sharing system includes a
host device configured to execute an application program and to
depict a first user interface according to a first compilation of a
plurality of first interface entities to convey information
regarding the execution of the application program, a client
device configured to communicate with the host device and to
depict a second user interface according to a second
compilation of a plurality of second interface entities different
than at least some of the first interface entities of the first
compilation, and wherein the client device is configured to
depict the second user interface to convey information
regarding the execution of the application program by the host
device, and wherein at least one of the host device and the
client device is configured to associate one of the first interface
entities with one of the second interface entities, and the
associated one of the first user interface entities and the
associated one of the second user interface entities comprise
different user interface entities.
(Abstract, Spec. 24; Figs 2 and 4).

2
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

Representative Claim
1. An application program sharing system comprising:
a host device configured to execute an application program and to
depict a first user interface according to a first compilation of a plurality of
first interface entities to convey information regarding the execution of the
application program;
a client device configured to communicate with the host device and to
depict a second user interface according to a second compilation of a
plurality of second interface entities different than at least some of the first
interface entities of the first compilation, and wherein the client device is
configured to depict the second user interface to convey information
regarding the execution of the application program by the host device; and
wherein at least one of the host device and the client device is
configured to associate one of the first interface entities with one of the
second interface entities, and the associated one of the first interface entities
and the associated one of the second interface entities comprise different
interface entities.

Prior Art and Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
anticipation and unpatentability:
Mairs US 5,874,960 Feb. 23, 1999
Tristan Richardson et al., Virtual Network Computing, Olivetti & Oracle
Research Lab., Jan.-Feb. 1998, at 33-38.

Claims 1 through 20, 22 through 26, 28 through 45, 47, 48, 50, 52,
and 53 (which encompass all independent claims on appeal, claims 1, 11, 23,
31, and 41) stand rejected as being anticipated within 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
Richardson. The remaining claims on appeal, claims 49, 51, and 52 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner
relies upon Richardson and Mairs.

3
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

ISSUES
1. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
subject matter of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is anticipated by
Richardson?
2. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of teachings of Richardson and Mairs teaches the subject
matter of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. With respect to Appellant’s assessment of the prior art, we reproduce
these paragraphs from the Specification as filed:
[0003] Networked and wireless communications have also been
utilized to provide increased communications capabilities for
portable devices. The portable devices may communicate with
networks, servers, personal computers, workstations, or other
remotely located equipment using wireless or networked
communications in these arrangements. Accordingly, these
devices enable a user to access remotely located devices (e.g., a
host computer) using wireless communications or other
appropriate communications medium.

[0004] In some implementations, it may be desirable for the
portable or remote device (also referred to as a client device) to
remotely access a user interface hosted on a desktop of the host
device. High-bandwidth communications may be utilized to
communicate screen resolution data from host servers to the
remote devices to enable the remote devices to display the
user interfaces of the host devices. According to these designs,
a large portion of the available bandwidth for communications
is utilized to communicate screen update information for the
user interfaces instead of providing communications of user
data.

4
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

[0005] Protocols, such as virtual network computing (VNC),
have been developed to provide compression and transmission
of desktop interfaces from a host computer to a client device (or
other computer or appliance). The compression provided by the
defined protocols reduces the demands placed upon the
available bandwidth for communication of the screen update
information for the user interfaces. However, these protocols
still provide transmission of full desktop user interfaces
typically necessitating the use of high-bandwidth
communications.

[0006] Representation formats, such as scalable vector graphics
(SVG), offer compact or reduced communications. However,
these formats are not typically suitable for bitmap graphics and
may be difficult to generate dynamically from arbitrary
bitmaps.
(Spec. [0003]-[0006].)

2. In accordance with Specification paragraph [0018], various processing
devices 12 of Figure 1 (which are illustrated in this figure to comprise a host
computer 16 and a client computer 18) are identified as prior art processing
devices to include personal computers, work stations, servers, notebook
computers, laptop computers, and generalized handheld or mobile devices
including PDAs as exemplary representations. Paragraph [0019] in the
Specification indicates that known prior art operating systems may be
implemented utilizing these devices to include well known windowing
approaches and recognizes that certain types of the prior art devices may
utilize similar, same or “different user interfaces corresponding to the
respective device configurations.”

3. As distinguished from user interfaces themselves, Appellant relates
the concepts of user interface “entities,” actions, and events in this manner:
5
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

[0022] Processing devices 12 are arranged to depict user
interfaces according to respective compilations of interface
entities. Exemplary user interface entities include events
generated by host device 16 upon execution of the application
program and which affect the user interface presented to a user.
Additional exemplary user interface entities include actions by
a user with respect to one of the processing devices 12 which
affect the user interface. Exemplary user interface entities may
also include visible interface elements (e.g., windows, icons,
toolbars, etc.) depicted within the user interface.
(Spec. [0022].)

[0024] In addition, same, similar or different interface entities
of respective user interfaces of host device 16 and client device
18 may be associated with one another to communicate
common information to users via different user interfaces. For
example, an interface entity action of inputting via a mouse
click of one processing device 12 may be associated with a
button of another processing device 12 (e.g., typical in
configurations of device 12 not having a mouse). An interface
entity event of closing a window in a processing device 12
using a WindowsTM operating environment may be associated
with an interface entity of iconification of a window in the other
processing device 12. When possible, it may be desirable to
associate the same interface entities with one another for
familiarity (e.g., prompting a user using an OK dialog box).
(Spec. [0024].)

[0025] Interface entities comprising visible interface elements
of the processing devices 12 may also be associated with one
another. For example, a visible window of one processing
device 12 may be associated with a three dimensional object of
the other processing device 12 which utilizes a three
dimensional user interface. A visible dialog box could be
associated with a single frame for text display (e.g., in a
processing device 12 comprising a cellular telephone). A visible
icon representing a specific audio source (e.g., audioIMP3) in
the user interface of one processing device 12 could be
6
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

represented using a generic icon in the user interface of the
other processing device 12. The above-described interface
entities are for illustration and for describing exemplary aspects
of the invention. Additional interface entities could be
associated with one another to convey information, including
information regarding the execution of the application program,
using plural processing devices 12. Additional details regarding
exemplary association procedures of the interface entities are
described further below.
(Spec. [0025].)

[0034] Interface entity store 30 may be referred to as a
compilation or library of a plurality of interface entities (e.g.,
visible interface elements) usable to generate a respective user
interface depicted, for example, using display 22. Interface
entities comprising visible interface elements may be stored as
bitmap files within interface entity store 30 in one exemplary
arrangement. Further, representation formats, such as SVG,
could be used as internal representations for interface entities
and identified interface entities could be provided within the
user interface at runtime.
(Spec. [0034].)

4. Appellant relates the concepts of user interfaces having the
same or different formats in various ways. We have already
reproduced Specification paragraph [0004] in our FF 1 prior art
known screen resolution differences between devices. This FF also
identifies different formats known in the art between bitmap graphics
approaches and scalable defector graphics (SVG) noted in the
Specification, paragraph [0006]. We also note the discussion in
Specification, paragraph [0023] that we reproduce here:

[0023] As mentioned above, the depicted user interfaces may be
depicted according to similar or different formats depending
upon hardware configurations of processing devices 12, the
7
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

operating systems utilized by the respective processing devices
12, or other criteria. For example, host device 16 may include a
first compilation of a plurality of interface entities while the
client device 18 may include a second compilation of interface
entities different than the first compilation of interface entities
of the host device 16.
(Spec. [0023], ll. 1-7.)

5. Appellant’s concept of translation between device formats and
the like is illustrated in part in Figure 4 and discussed impliedly in FF
1 in paragraph [0004], reproduced there with respect to implied
translation between different devices having different screen
resolution data requirements. Additionally, Appellant describes
translation in this manner:
[0026] As described herein, aspects of the invention provide
translation and sharing of user interface entities from one
processing device 12 to the other processing device 12 for use
in depicting respective user interfaces using the devices 12.
State changes (e.g., corresponding to events, actions, or other
changes to the user interfaces) of the user interfaces may be
implemented by communicating identifiers identifying the
interface entities to be modified, and the changes to the
identified interface entities (e.g., close window, move
window, new text strings, etc.). The other processing device 12
receives the identifiers and the respective changes and
implements the changes to the interface entities of the
respective user interface.
(Spec. [0026], ll. 1-10.)

Translation logic 36 in Figure 3 is discussed at Specification,
paragraph [0038] in this manner:
[0038] Translation logic 36 provides handshaking operations
with respect to other programming devices 12. For example,
translation logic 36 provides negotiation and mapping of
interface entities between the respective processing
8
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

devices 12. The mapping and negotiation operations are
performed to provide association of different interface entities
between processing devices 12 and sharing of interface entities
between processing devices 12 as mentioned above. Additional
details of translation logic 36 are described below.

Further discussions of translation are found in the Specification,
paragraph [0043], which we reproduce here:
[0043] Aspects of the invention provide translation of a user
interface of a host device 16 to a user interface of a client
device 18. Interface entities of a host user interface (e.g., what
the user sees, what the user can do, etc.) are converted to
corresponding interface entities for use in a user interface
depicted using client device 18. The translation operations of
the present invention provide flexibility to depict information
via a plurality of user interfaces of processing devices 12 which
may be executing similar or different operating systems, have
different hardware configurations or capabilities of displays 22,
etc.

Figure 4 generally implements manners in which translations of the
type disclosed and claimed occur.
The discussions of the noted paragraphs within this Finding of
Fact relate to teachings associated with the concepts of mapping,
negotiation, association, comparing and sharing.

6. Richardson’s title “Virtual Network Computing” relates to the
concept of VNC mentioned in Specification paragraph [0005] that we
reproduced in FF 1. VNC relates to the same state and configuration
correlations between the same or different devices having graphical
user interfaces that are the same or different from each other. The left
column of page 33 identifies VNC as an ultra-thin client system
9
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

(which clearly implies a client-host relationship) based on a simple
display protocol that is platform-independent. In this so-called “thin
clients” box at column 1 of page 34, the VNC reduces the amount of
state maintained at a users’ terminal; this discussion also identifies
other “thin clients.” Importantly, the second paragraph of column 1 of
page 34 indicates that “VNC is a simple remote-display protocol.” It
is further characterized as being “totally independent of operating
system, windowing system, and applications.” Various types of prior
art protocols are noted at column 2 of page 34 for the concept of
allowing applications to display user interfaces on a remote machine.
Significantly, the discussed VNC protocol is characterized in
this manner:
The technology underlying the VNC system is a simple
protocol for remote access to graphical user interfaces. It works
at the framebuffer level and therefore applies to all operating
systems, windowing systems, and applications--indeed to any
device with some form of communications link. The protocol
will operate over any reliable transport such as TCP/IP.

The endpoint with which the user interacts (that is, the
display and/or input devices) is called the VNC client or
viewer. The endpoint where changes to the framebuffer
originate (that is, the windowing system and applications) is
known as the VNC server (see Figure 1).
Richardson, supra, at 35, col. 1.

The discussion of a graphics primitive includes raw encoding
and copy rectangle encoding at column 1 of page 35 in the context of
reducing bandwidth, the disclosed aim of the application before us.
Significantly, the teachings there indicate to an artisan that
translations and negotiations of the type disclosed and claimed are
10
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

taught in this reference. Furthermore, they relate to actions and events
of users, where an example is given of a user moving a window across
the screen or scrolling a window’s content. The teaching with respect
to encoding and negotiations states that “the encodings actually used
on a given connection can be negotiated according to capabilities of
the server and client and the connection between them.” (page 35, col.
1). Different types of encodings are also discussed that were known
in the art. The topic heading of “Adaptive Update” teaches further
concepts of translation between devices and the ability to use different
types of encoding techniques. It is stated that update protocol is
demand-driven by a client suggesting user events and actions with
respect to the user interface and further indicates that screen changes
are noted to include user a dragging a window across the screen.
Another significant teaching is reproduced here:
The input side of the VNC protocol is based on a standard
workstation model of a keyboard and multibutton pointing
device. The client sends input events to the server whenever
the user presses a key or pointer button, or moves the
pointing device. Input events can also be synthesized from
other nonstandard I/O devices. On the Videotile, for example,
a pen-based handwriting recognition engine generates
keyboard events.
Richardson, supra, at 35, col. 2.

The topic heading, “Connection Setup and Shutdown” at the bottom
of column 2 of page 35 includes the ability of devices to set up their
connections. In this paragraph bridging this page to column 1 of page 36, it
is stated that “[t]he server and client then exchange messages to negotiate
desktop size, pixel format, and encoding schemes.” Figure 2 illustrates on
this page parts labeled [a]-[d], a variety of desktops including X and
11
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

Windows-based desktop being accessed from Java and native X and
Windows viewers. From these teachings and showings, the artisan would
appreciate that the same/different desktops/devices/hosts provide the
same/different viewer/client/devices with the same/different displayable
entities using the same/different user interfaces.
The topic of “VNC Servers” at column 2 at page 36 teaches that
servers perform “translations (for example, the server must provide pixel
data in the format the client wants).” It is further noted that X-based server
utilizing a Unix machine “can run a number of VNC servers for different
servers each representing a distinct VNC desktop. Each desktop is like a
virtual X display, with a root window on which several X applications can
appear.” The concept of virtualized display is, therefore, taught. These
teachings are continued in the latter portions of the right column of
Richardson at page 36 to indicate that VNC may be tailored to particular
devices, where the user interface may even be utilized to depict a CD player
(such as shown on Figure 3 at page 37). The first column of page 37
identifies other types of graphical user interfaces, such as for PDAs;
different types of display modes are discussed; and different types of
correlated user input devices in display formats are also mentioned.
7. Consistent with the title of Mairs of sharing applications between
computer systems, this capability is shown in Figure 2 of this patent and
software modules to effect the sharing are depicted generally in Figure 3.
The first sentence of the Abstract states: “[a] method in a computer system
for displaying data generated by a shared application on a host computer
system on both a host display of the host computer system and a shadow
display of a shadow computer systems.” (Abstract, l. 1.) A deficiency of the
12
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

prior art approaches to Mairs is isolated at the bottom paragraph of column
1, at lines 61 to 67, that we reproduce here:
Also, various computer systems within a network may have
differing display resolutions. For example, some computer
systems may have a display resolution of 1024 by 768 pixels
and other computer systems may have a display resolution of
640 by 480. Thus, it would be useful when sharing an
application to accommodate the different display resolutions.

Also because of its significant teachings the Examiner relies upon, we
reproduce the last paragraph of the summary at column 3, lines 20 to 37:

In another aspect of the present invention, the Share System
provides a method in a computer system for resolving display
resolution differences between a host computer system and a
shadow computer system. The host computer system executes
a shared application that displays output. The output is
displayed on both a host display of the host computer system
and a shadow display of the shadow computer system. The
host display has a host display resolution and the shadow
display has a shadow display resolution. First, the Share
System determines whether the host display resolution or the
shadow display resolution is higher. Then, the Share System
simulates the higher resolution on the computer system with the
lower resolution by establishing a virtual display with the
higher resolution, by displaying a viewport of the lower display
resolution into the virtual display, and by scrolling the viewport
to reflect a current cursor position within the display with the
higher display resolution.

These resolution teachings directly correlate to the teachings of
resolution differences that are known to the artisan and identified in
Appellant’s Specification paragraph [0003] as part of the prior art we
reproduced in FF1. As noted with respect to Richardson in FF 5,
Mairs in this Finding of Fact also teaches, according to the discussion
13
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

just noted, virtual displays among the sharing capabilities. The
abilities also include the users’ ability to scroll and to reposition the
cursor, which teachings relate clearly to corresponding actions and
events.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications
not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.
The rule that anticipation requires that every element of a claim
appears in a single reference accommodates situations where the common
knowledge of “technologists” is not recorded in a reference, i.e., where
technical facts are known to those in the field of the invention. Continental
Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Similarly,
In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995), confirms the
longstanding interpretation that the teachings of a reference may be taken in
combination with knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in
14
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

possession of the claimed invention within 35 U.S.C. § 102, even though the
patent does not specifically disclose certain features.
Obviousness
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989)). Our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the
claims to specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).

The Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a
patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” and
discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be
obvious. Id. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14
(1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.
15
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

The operative question in this “functional approach” is thus “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417.
We must determine whether or not the differences between the subject
matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
See id. at 407. Obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid
formula, and we will consider the facts of a case and the common sense of
those skilled in the art. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). That is, the test for
obviousness is rather what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981).

ANALYSIS
We have reproduced in FF 1 significant Specification admissions of
prior art that the artisan would well have appreciated were independently
taught as well in Richardson as we have extensively cited in FF 6.
Correspondingly, from an artisan’s perspective, we have reproduced
significant teachings of Appellant’s disclosed invention in FF 2 through 5,
which relate to the basis upon which the argued claimed concepts are based.
These amount to generalizations of broad concepts which have
corresponding teachings and FF 6 and 7 relating to Richardson’s and Mairs’
16
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

comparable concepts that are disclosed and taught in these references in the
same or slightly different words.
According to the guidance provided by the earlier-noted case law,
under the topic of anticipation, the artisan’s perspective of the teachings that
are disclosed and claimed are shown and identified to be admitted in the
prior art by Appellant as well as shown and taught in the applied prior art.
These include the concepts of user interface “entities,” “actions,” and
“events.” Various articulations of translation functions among the claims,
including mapping, negotiation, association, comparing and sharing, are also
taught in corresponding and comparable manners in Richardson and Mairs.
To the extent extensively argued in the Brief and Reply Brief for numerous
claims on appeal, we find that the artisan would not find any patentable
distinction associated with the claimed features that are argued by Appellant
not to be present within the references. The idea of the disclosed and
claimed invention of sharing applications between different or the same
computer systems having the same or different user interfaces by the same
or different user actions/events/ “entities” are plainly taught to be interfaced
and otherwise translated to the extent claimed in the applied prior art, as we
have noted among our lengthy findings of fact from Richardson and Mairs.
To the extent Appellant challenges the Examiner’s apparent reliance,
as to some claims, upon implicit or inherent teachings of Richardson (such
as at pages 8 and 9 of the principal Brief), the pertinent citations of teachings
in Richardson in FF 6 clearly would have indicated to the artisan that, to the
extent argued and to the extent the claimed teachings are contested, they
necessarily flow from or necessarily result from the artisan’s understanding
of the manner which Richardson operates. We reach this conclusion from
17
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

our understanding of the guiding case law under our earlier citation under
anticipation, when the teachings are considered from an artisan’s
perspective, that is, from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.
They broadly define concepts that are argued in the claims by the broad and
specific teachings of corresponding concepts in Richardson and Mairs.
Lastly, we address Appellant’s argument beginning of page 16 of the
principal Brief on appeal and at page 11 of the Reply Brief that the
Examiner has failed to provide articulated reasoning and a factual support
for the combinability of teachings in Richardson and Mairs. We strongly
disagree with this view, especially in view of the guidance provided by the
case law identified earlier in this opinion as to obviousness. We agree with
the Examiner’s basic assertions that the different resolutions noted in Mairs
correspond to claimed features of different formats. This is also an implicit
recognition of Appellant’s assessment of the prior art in FF 1, as discussed
in his own paragraph [0003] in the Specification as filed. The same may be
said of the concept of different formats being available between scalable
vector graphics (SVG) and bitmap graphics approaches identified in
Specification paragraph [0006] as part of the prior art we noted in FF 1.
Additionally, even without the additional teachings we have identified
extensively in Mairs in FF 7, we have identified significant formatting
teachings within Richardson alone corresponding to the recognition that
different formats exist for different user interfaces between different devices.
Both Richardson and Mairs can be conceptualized as addressing different
aspects of “virtual displays” to the extent we have identified them in the
corresponding teachings in FF 6 and 7 within these references.

18
Appeal 2008-004822
Application 10/232,443

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Richardson anticipates the subject matter of claims 1-20, 22 through 26, 28
through 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, and 53.
2. Correspondingly, Appellant has also not shown that Examiner has
erred in finding the combination of teachings of Richardson and Mairs
teaches the subject matter of dependent claims 49, 51, and 54.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. §102
(b) as being anticipated by Richardson is affirmed. Additionally, the
Examiner’s separate rejection of the identified claims as being obvious over
Richardson and Mairs is also affirmed. All claims on appeal are
unpatentable.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

erc

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P O BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400

19