Ex Parte Guido et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 2011

10814551 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2011)

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.
10/814,551 03/31/2004 Patrick R. Guido RSW920030282US1/4541-016 7434
67419 7590 01/28/2011
COATS & BENNETT/IBM
1400 CRESCENT GREEN
SUITE 300
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
ORR, HENRY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PATRICK R. GUIDO, PAUL F. MCMAHAN,
and ROBERT C. LEAH
____________

Appeal 2009-007672
Application 10/814,551
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007672
Application 10/814,551

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-28, which are all of the claims in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to windows in a GUI environment
grouped by a user into one or more affinity groups. When one of the
windows in the affinity group receives window focus, all of the windows in
the affinity group shift to a z-order level above windows not in the affinity
group. Affinity groups are formed by the user by dragging and dropping
windows into a window group icon on a group member window or by
entering window group keystroke combinations into the windows to be
grouped. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method of associating windows generated by
different applications in a GUI environment into one or more
affinity groups by a user and accessing the windows as a group,
comprising:

providing a GUI environment including a plurality of
windows;

establishing, by a user, a first affinity group comprising a
subset of two or more but less than all of said plurality of
windows in said GUI environment, said first affinity group
including windows associated with at least two different,
Appeal 2009-007672
Application 10/814,551

3
independent applications, such that the windows comprising
said first affinity group are related; and

raising a z-order of windows in said first affinity group
above other windows in said GUI environment when any one
window in said first affinity group is selected.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-5, 10-22, and 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ashe (US 5,995,103) and Diedrichsen (US
5,920,313).
Claims 6-9, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ashe, Diedrichsen, and Malamud (US 5,694,561).
Claims 6-9, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ashe, Diedrichsen, and Haynes (US 2005/0198585 A1).

Claim Grouping
In view of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Ashe and Diedrichsen teaches a “group including windows
associated with at least two different, independent applications” as recited in
claim 1?

Appeal 2009-007672
Application 10/814,551

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read 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) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citations omitted).

Obviousness
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). “The 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.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the combination of Ashe and Diedrichsen
does not teach a “group including windows associated with at least two
different, independent applications” as recited in claim 1. Appellants
contend that the claimed applications are different in that they are not the
Appeal 2009-007672
Application 10/814,551

5
same application, and are independent in that they are not logically or
functionally related. App. Br. 6. Appellants further contend that the
windows in Diedrichsen are not independent because they are logically or
functionally related in a parent/child relationship. App. Br. 10-12.
The Examiner finds that Diedrichsen teaches a group including
windows associated with at least two different applications. Ans. 4. The
Examiner further finds that reading the phrase “independent applications” in
light of Appellants’ Specification (Ans. 18), the applications of Diedrichsen
are independent (id. at 22).
Appellants respond that although Appellants’ Specification gives an
example of independent applications that are related to the same task or
operation (Reply Br. 2), the applications are independent in that they are not
logically or functionally related to each other (id. at 3).
Appellants’ Specification states that:
A well-known advantage of a GUI environment is that it allows
a user to simultaneously work with multiple, disparate
applications, each running in a separate window. For example,
Figure 2 depicts a GUI environment of a user preparing a
report. . . . In this case, the Internet browser in window 36, the
e-mail client in window 38, and the word processor in window
40 are all related to the same task or operation-namely, writing
a report. According to the present invention, the user may
create an affinity group comprising the windows 36, 38, 40 . . . .

Spec ¶ [0014].
Diedrichsen teaches that:
Many applications make use of several user interface objects,
typically windows and icons, that are related logically. Such
objects are often child objects of a main or parent window
object. Different applications can also be organized into
groups of applications, each of which are related by function.
Appeal 2009-007672
Application 10/814,551

6

Col. 1, ll. 60-65 (emphasis added).
Diedrichsen presents the teaching of different applications, related by
function and organized into groups, as an alternative to the teaching of
windows related logically, in a parent and child relationship. Therefore,
Appellants’ arguments that the teachings of Diedrichsen are limited to parent
and child applications are unpersuasive. We find that Diedrichsen teaches
organizing different applications, related by function (rather than as parent
and child), into groups. We further find that the term “independent
applications,” when read in light of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses
different applications that are related by function as taught by Diedrichsen.
Appellants have not provided arguments for separate patentability of
claims 2-28. Claims 2-28 thus fall with claim 1.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Ashe and Diedrichsen teaches a “group including windows
associated with at least two different, independent applications” as recited in
claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 10-22, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ashe and Diedrichsen is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 6-9, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ashe, Diedrichsen, and Malamud is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-007672
Application 10/814,551

7
The rejection of claims 6-9, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ashe, Diedrichsen, and Haynes 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

COATS & BENNETT/IBM
1400 CRESCENT GREEN
SUITE 300
CARY NC 27518