Ex Parte Gu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2018

14517265 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/517,265 10/17/2014
69316 7590 11/29/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jiawei Gu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
341580.02 4967
EXAMINER
TRAN, TUYETLIEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIA WEI GU and CHUNSHUI ZHAO
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, DAVID M. KOHUT, and CARLL. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-13 and 21-27, which are all of the
pending claims. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Claims 14--20 were previously cancelled.
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
INVENTION
The invention relates to a graphical user interface that utilizes
"[ r ]epresentations of applications ( e.g., icons, tiles and so on) ... to support
a wide variety of functionality without having the user specifically launch
the application." Spec. ,r 37. The representations of applications include
expanded representations that provide "additional information that was not
included in an unexpanded version of the tile," and may permit "limited
inputs to an application and/or allow limited functionality to applications
features." Id. at ,r 39.
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below.
1. A method implemented by a computing device, the
method comprising:
displaying a user interface by the computing device that
includes representations of hardware devices or applications;
displaying a taskbar in the user interface by the
computing device, the taskbar including representations of
applications that are selectable to launch execution of the
applications, at least one of the representations for a respective
said application configured as an expanded representation
configured to accept one or more inputs involving content
displayed within the expanded representation; and
responsive to receipt of a selection of a particular one of
the representations of content in the expanded representation
and a selection of one of the representations of hardware
devices or applications, sending the content from the expanded
representation to the hardware device or application that
corresponds to the selected representation of the hardware
devices or applications.
2
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1-13, 21-23, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Louch et al. (US 2011/0296337 Al
published Dec. 1, 2011), Russell et al. (US 2012/0054778 Al published
Mar. 1, 2012), and Briand (US 2013/0174070 Al published Jul. 4, 2013).
Final Act. 3-9.
The Examiner rejects claims 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Louch, Russell, Briand, and Le Vee et al. (US2012/0304106 Al
published Nov. 29, 2012). Final Act. 9-10.
The Examiner rejects claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over Briand and Russell. Final Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
Group 1 (Claims l, 4, 5, 8, 9, 1~13, 21, and 2~261_
The Examiner finds that Louch teaches "sending the content from the
representation to the hardware device or application that corresponds to the
selected representation of the hardware devices or applications," as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 4 ( citing Louch Figs. IA---C, ,r 65---68); Ans. 5 ( citing
Louch Fig. 3A, ,r 65).
Figures IB and 3A of Louch are reproduced below.
2 Appellants argue claims 1, 4, 5, 8-13, 21, and 24--26 together as Group I.
App. Br. 10-11.
3
Appeal 2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
105·--- ',
104
"'--c:] My Computf.}t
App 2
104 104
"---c] My Documents "--.~ DociJ~:~ent 1
104
\-~-c:J Desk1op
113
107j
File Edit
313 315
,'
,.
;1 : hDDt:c:a K1H ~ ~ "O, .. t·· i..· , ' .
' 104_/
.J
FIG. 1B
117
i
View Insert Forrnat ,
i
J
' . '1018 316
I ~ J
3'17
FIG. 3A
4
j
319
I
--- 301
/
,,. 311
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
Figures lB and 3A depict a screen space of a display device of a data
processing system, wherein a portion of the screen space includes a
displayed region (e.g., a "dock") used to control application programs and
the positioning of a proxy of a selected item over an item within the
displayed region. Louch ,r,r 11, 12, and 22.
The Examiner finds that "item 104 can be transferred from one
application representation App 1 to another application representation App2
using the application representation displayed in the taskbar." Final Act. 4
( citing Louch, Figs. 1 A-1 C, ,r,r 65---68). The Examiner further finds that
"Figure 3A shows responsive to receipt of a selection of a particular one of
the representation of content 308 in an [ expanded] representation 315 ...
sending the content such as content 308 to App2 application." Ans. 5-6. In
other words, the Examiner finds that Louch teaches selecting and sending
content from an active application to a hardware device or application
representation in a taskbar (Fig. 1 B) and from a hardware device or
application representation in a taskbar to an active application (Fig. 3A). Id.
According to the Examiner, "Louch does not explicitly disclose the
representation configured to accept one or more inputs involving content
displayed within the representation is configured as [an] expanded
representation." Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner finds that Russell
teaches a "representation for an application configured as an expanded
representation configured to accept one or more inputs involving content
displayed within the expanded representation." Id. (citing Russell Figs. 5A-
5C, ,r,r 10, 32, 33, and 46).
5
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
Figure 5C of Russell is reproduced below.
Figure 5C depicts a screen presentation for a graphical user interface
navigation system. Russell ,r 19. The navigation system includes a toolbar
with tiles that allow a user to access the item the tile represents. Id. at ,r 13.
As shown in the sticky notes expanded tile in Figure 5C, when a user
actuates a tile, an expanded tile is presented that allows a user to directly
access the contents of the application represented by the expanded tile
without launching the application. Id. at ,r,r 32-33, and 42.
Finally, the Examiner finds that Russell's expanded tile
representations are not explicitly described as being included in a taskbar.
Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner finds that Briand discloses a taskbar
that includes at least one rich representation taskbar button. Id. ( citing
Briand Figs. 4A--4F). The Examiner then concludes that it would have been
6
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Louch to include
Russell's expanded tiles and Briand' s rich taskbar representations because it
would provide dynamic and pertinent information to the user. Id. The
Examiner further explains that the combination would allow a user to
"interact with their content (including both local content and content that is
remote, e.g., content that is stored in the cloud) via the navigation system
without necessarily launching a parent application." Id. ( citing Russell ,r
33).
Appellants argue that none of the cited references teaches "sending
the content from the expanded representation to the hardware device or
application that corresponds to the selected representation," as recited in
independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 21. App. Br.
10-13; Rep. Br. 3-5. Specifically, Appellants argue that (1) Louch does not
teach expanded representations, (2) Russell teaches only viewing content
with an expanded representation and does not send content anywhere, (3)
Briand does not teach expanded representations. Id. Appellants further
argue that the combination relies on impermissible hindsight and that
Examiner's asserted motivation to combine does not support the proposed
combination of Louch, Russell, and Briand. Id. at 11, 13-16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments as nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here,
the basis of the obviousness rejection is predicated on the combined
teachings of Louch, Russell, and Briand. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426
(CCP A 1981 ). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination
7
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
of Louch, Russell, and Briand, taken as a whole, would have suggested
"sending the content from the expanded representation to the hardware
device or application that corresponds to the selected representation." In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner's obviousness rejection proposes modifying
Louch with Russell and Briand. Final Act. 3-9. Specifically, the Examiner
finds that Louch teaches sending content from a representation to a hardware
or application. Final Act. 4. The Examiner proposes to modify Louch to
include Russell's expanded representations, which are configured to accept
one or more inputs involving content displayed within the expanded
representation. Final Act. 5 (citing Russell Figs. 5A-5C, ,r,r 10, 32, 33, and
46). In other words, the Examiner proposes applying Louch's sending of
content from a representation to Russell's expanded representations. We
agree with the Examiner that it would be obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art how to combine Louch, Russell and Briand to teach and
suggest "sending content from an expanded representation to a hardware or
application." Id. at 6-7.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' contention that the
Examiner's asserted motivation to combine does not support the proposed
combination of Louch, Russell and Briand. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Louch
to include Russell's expanded tiles and Briand's rich taskbar representations
because it would provide dynamic and pertinent information to the user.
Final Act 5. Appellants argue that hindsight drives the proffered motivation
because "there is no discussion of doing anything with the sticky notes
8
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
except viewing or editing them." App. Br. 14. Appellants further argue that
the Examiner does not explain, "what 'dynamic and pertinent information'
would be provided to the user by moving the sticky notes to the taskbar." Id.
We disagree with Appellants because the references themselves
support the reasoning articulated by the Examiner for modifying Louch with
Russell and Briand. See Russell ,r 32 ("The navigation system also provides
a dynamic and light interface via expanded tiles that enhances interface
interaction and discoverability, delights the user with a tangible user
interface, and offers a personalized user experience.") Hence, the Examiner
did not improperly rely on knowledge gleaned only from Appellants'
disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971).
Therefore, in light of the above, we find the Examiner articulated
sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to establish why an artisan
would have been motivated to combine the references. Final Act. 5.
Furthermore, we note that given the evidence cited by the Examiner (Final
Act. 3-5), we also conclude that combining the respective teachings of
Louch, Russell, and Briand in the manner proffered by the Examiner would
have merely realized a predictable result See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). In this case, combining Louch with Russell and
Briand would realize the predictable result of permitting the content
represented in Russell's expanded representations to be sent to applications
and hardware in the manner described in Louch. Ans. 6----7.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10-13, 21, and 24-26.
9
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
Group II (Claim 2 >1-
The Examiner finds that the combination of Louch, Russell, and
Briand teach "the content is consumable through execution of the
application represented by the expanded representation," as recited in claim
2. Final Act. 5---6 (citing Louch, Figs. IA-IC; ,r,r 43, 46). Appellants
disagree and argue that Louch fails to teach the "content displayed within
the expanded representation," per claim 1, and "the application which
consumes the content must be 'the application represented by the expanded
representation."' App. Br. 16-18; Rep. Br. 5---6. The Examiner responds
that the combination of Louch, Russell, and Briand teaches the claimed
expanded representations and Louch' s content items, which can be pictures,
documents, flowcharts, and presentations, are consumable through execution
of Application 2 as shown in Figure ID. Ans. 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As noted above in
the discussion of Group 1, we find that the combination of Louch, Russell,
and Briand teache "sending the content from the expanded representation to
the hardware device or application that corresponds to the selected
representation." Ans. 3-9. We agree with the Examiner's finding that
Louch teaches sending content to another application or hardware and that
content is consumable through execution of an application as the content that
is sent must be consumed in some manner. Ans. 9 (citing Louch, Fig. ID,
3A). In addition to Louch, Russell teaches content in an expanded
representation is accessed, or consumed, through the execution of the
application represented by the expanded representation. Russell Fig. 3; ,r 38
("For a launched object, the user can then use the object as desired at step
3 Appellants identify claim 2 as Group II. App. Br. 16.
10
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
332."). Considering the Examiner's findings, and that neither the claims nor
the Specification defines "consumable," we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Louch, Russell, and Briand teaches and suggests the
disputed limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 2.
Group III (Claim 3 )1.
Appellants argue that the combination of Louch, Russell, and Briand
fails to teach "sending is performed without executing the application
represented by the expanded representation," as recited in claim 3. App. Br.
18-20; Rep. Br. 6-7. Specifically, Appellants argue that Louch fails to
teach an expanded representation and does not send content without
executing the application represented by the expanded representation. Rep.
Br. 7. The Examiner responds that Louch teaches "sending of content from
a representation displayed in the taskbar," as discussed in above. Ans. 9-10.
The Examiner further responds that Russell teaches expanded
representations that allow a user to interact with their content without
necessarily launching a parent application. Id. at 10 ( citing Russell, Figs.
5A-5C; ,r,r 10, 32-33, and 46).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As described above
in the discussion of Group I, we find that the combination of Louch, Russell,
and Briand teaches sending content from an expanded representation to a
hardware or application. Further, as pointed out by the Examiner, Russell
4 Appellants identify claim 3 as Group III. App. Br. 18.
11
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
describes the expanded representations as allowing a user to "interact with
their content via the navigation system without necessarily launching a
parent application." Final Act. 6. Russell describes this feature stating
"users can interact with their content (including both local content and
content that is remote, e.g., content that is stored in the cloud) via the
navigation system without necessarily launching a parent application."
Russell ,r 33. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Louch, Russell, and Briand teaches and suggests the "sending is performed
without executing the application represented by the expanded
representation."
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Group IV (Claims 6 and 7)2
Appellants argue that the combination of Louch, Russell, and Briand
fails to teach "wherein the selection of the particular one of the
representations of content in the expanded representation and the selection
of one of the representations of hardware devices or applications is
performed via a gesture," as recited in claim 6, or "wherein the gesture is a
drag and drop gesture," as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 20-21; Rep. Br. 7-8.
Specifically, Appellants assert that the portion of Louch cited by the
Examiner does not teach "the claimed selection of the particular one of the
representations of content in the expanded representation." App. Br. 21.
The Examiner finds that Louch teaches "selection of a particular one
of the representations of content in the representation." Final Act. 4 ( citing
5 Appellants group claims 6 and 7 as Group IV and argues the claims
together. App. Br. 20.
12
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
Louch, Figs. lA---C, ,r,r 65---68). The Examiner also finds that Louch
discloses that selections may be performed via a gesture by describing a drag
and drop gesture. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Louch ,r 8). The Examiner explains
that Russell and Briand teach an expanded representation in a taskbar and
Louch discloses "the selection of the particular one of the representations of
content in the expanded representation and the selection of one of the
representation of hardware devices or application is performed via a drag-
and-drop gesture." Ans. 11 (citing Louch Fig. 3A, ,r 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As described above
in the discussion of Group I, we find that the combination of Louch, Russell,
and Briand teaches and suggests sending content from an expanded
representation to a hardware or application. As noted by the Examiner,
Louch further discloses that a user may select content via a drag-and-drop
gesture. Id. Here, the Examiner's obviousness rejection is based on the
collective teachings of Louch, Russell, and Briand, and what the
combination would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. We
are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
understood how to implement Louch's drag-and-drop gesture into the
combined Louch, Briand, and Russell system for selection of the particular
one of the representations of content in the expanded representation and the
selection of one of the representations of hardware devices or applications.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 6. We similarly
sustain the rejection of claim 7, which depends therefrom and is not
separately argued.
13
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
Group V (Claim 22)2
Appellants argue that the combination of Louch, Russell, and Briand
fails to teach "the taskbar is configured as a back stack of an operating
system on the computing device," as recited in claim 22. App. Br. 21-22;
Rep. Br. 8-10. Appellants assert that the Specification defines the term
"back stack" stating
[0094] However, applications may also "remain available" by
the operating system 108 through use of a taskbar 1702
operating as a "back stack" in which execution of the
application is suspended until it appears on the display device
1508. A user, for instance, may make a swipe gesture through
one or more fingers of the users hand, a "click and drag"
gesture, and so on to replace one or more of the applications
currently being displayed with an application from the back
stack.
Id. at 21. In view of the Specification, Appellants assert that the term "back
stack" requires that "the execution of the application is suspended until the
application appears on the display." Rep. Br. 9. Considering the asserted
definition, Appellants argue that Louch, Russell, and Briand merely teach a
docking interface or taskbar without specifically describing that the task bar
is configured as a back stack because none of the cited references disclosing
any suspension of an application. Id. The Examiner responds that the
claims do not require an application to suspend and Appellants are
improperly importing limitations from the specifications into the claims.
Ans. 11.
We find Appellants' argument to be persuasive of Examiner error.
The Examiner finds that Louch' s docking interface teaches the claimed
6 Appellants identify claim 22 as Group V. App. Br. 21.
14
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
"taskbar ... configured as a back stack." Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner
also finds that Russell discloses a toolbar that displays expanded
representations while the application is suspended. Ans. 12 ( citing Russell,
Figs. 5A-5C, ,r,r 10, 32-33, and 45). In the Examiner's view, Russell
displays expanded representations "without necessarily launching a parent
application," and thus, the applications are suspended. Id.
However, neither Louch nor Russell describe their docking interface
or taskbar configured as a back stack or describe suspending an application.
App. Br. 21; Rep. Br. 9. Further, although Russell displays expanded
representations without necessarily launching the application, we are
persuaded that not launching an application is different from a "back stack"
for suspended applications. Rep. Br. 9-10. In the case of the claimed "back
stack," an application would launch and later be suspended. Rep. Br. 10.
Russell's disclosure merely describes displaying an expanded representation
"without necessarily launching a parent application," but does not describe
that the application is suspended or stored in a back stack. Id. We agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that Louch, Russell,
and Briand teach or suggest a task bar configured as a back stack, as
required by the claim. Id.
Therefore, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the rejection
of claim 22.
15
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
Group VI (Claim 2J)Z
The Examiner finds that Briand's graphically user interface and
Russell's taskbar teaches "at least one of the expanded representations is
pinned to the taskbar," as recited in claim 23. Final Act. 9 (citing Briand,
Figs. 4A--4F; Russell ,r 33). Appellants disagree and argue that the
combination of Louch, Russell, and Briand fails to teach an expanded
representation pinned to the taskbar. App. Br. 22-23; Rep. Br. 10-11.
Specifically, Appellants argue "[t]he specification describes specific actions
to perform pinning, e.g., at [0095] (right click menu command), and [00122]
( option selection). The Specification also separately discusses drag-and-
drop, e.g., at [0099]. Pinning is thus distinguished from drag-and-drop."
Rep. Br. 10. In other words, Appellants argue that none of the cited
references discloses the steps of "pinning" an object to the taskbar.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's interpretation of "pinned" as
"attached" or "included" is improper.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. First, we note that
Appellants' argument is focused on the alleged failure of the cited references
to teach "pinning." However, claim 23 does not recite "pinning" and instead
recites only an expanded representation "pinned" to the taskbar. As a result,
Appellants' arguments regarding the Specification defining the specific
actions to perform pinning are misplaced.
Second, the Specification does not explicitly define "pinned," and we
not persuaded that the Examiner's interpretation of "pinned" as "attached"
or "included" is unreasonable. As Russell discloses a toolbar with multiple
content items including an expanded representation attached thereto, we
7 Appellants identify claim 23 as Group VI. App. Br. 22.
16
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Louch, Russell, and Briand
teach and suggest "at least one of the expanded representations is pinned to
the taskbar." Ans. 13.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 23.
Group VII (Claim 27)!1
Appellants argue that the combination of Briand and Russell fails to
teach "responsive to receipt of a selection of a particular one of the
representations of content in the expanded representation and a selection of
one of the representations of the applications, sending the content from the
expanded representation to the application that corresponds to the selected
representation of the application," as recited in claim 27. App. Br. 23-26. 9
Appellants also argue that Briand and Russell fail to teach "responsive to
receipt of a selection of a particular one of the representations of content in
the expanded representation and a selection of the representation of the
hardware device, sending the content from the expanded representation to
the hardware device that corresponds to the selected representation of the
hardware device," as further recited in claim 27. Id. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Briand does not teach an expanded representation and
thus, the combination of references fails to teach the disputed limitation. Id.
8 Appellants argue claim 27 as Group VII and Appellants make similar
arguments with Group VII as with Group I. App. Br. 10-13.
9 Appellants note that the Office Action describes the Matthews reference in
the rejection of claim 27 without specifically citing thereto. We view the
reference to Matthews as a typographical error. The expanded
representation is taught by Russell, as explained in the rejection. Final Act.
12.
17
Appeal2018-001242
Application 14/517 ,265
at 26. The Examiner responds that Russell teaches the claimed "expanded
representation." Ans. 13-16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As described above
in the discussion of Group I, we find that Russell discloses an expanded
representation. Russell teaches and suggests an expanded representation that
"accepts one or more inputs involving content displayed within the
expanded representation." Ans. 15 (citing Russell, Figs. 5A-5C, ,r,r 10, 32-
33, and 46).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 27.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-13, 21, and 23-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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-IN-PART
18