Ex Parte Haggar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

14102695 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/102,695 12/11/2013 Peter F. Haggar
73109 7590 09/04/2018
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
CAM920130058US 1_8150-0464 6942
EXAMINER
RAMSEY, PATRICK RANDAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER F. HAGGAR, JACQUELINE G. ROJANATA VORN,
STEVEN K. SPEICHER, MARKE. WALLACE, and SCOTT A. WILL
Appeal2017-010315 1
Application 14/102,6952
Technology Center 2100
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14--18, and 20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Dec. 29, 2016), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 5, 2017), and
Specification ("Spec.," filed Dec. 11, 2013), as well as the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 5, 2017) and the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.," mailed Aug. 2, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IBM Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010315
Application 14/102,695
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates to creating a multi-display
desktop that is operable under the control of a plurality of different
computing systems to facilitate collaboration among a plurality of users of
the computing systems." Spec. ,r 17. Claim 1 is illustrative of subject
matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
establishing a peer-to-peer communication link between
a first computing system and a second computing system,
wherein the first computing system comprises a first display
device and a first pointer upon the display device controlled by
the first computing system, and wherein the second computing
system comprises a second display device and a second pointer
upon the second display device controlled by the second
computing system;
within the second computing system, receiving first
pointer control data for the first pointer from the first
computing system, wherein the first pointer control data
indicates that the first pointer is to be displayed upon the second
display device;
displaying the first pointer upon the second display
device as specified by the first pointer control data, wherein the
first pointer is displayed upon the second display device
concurrently with the second pointer;
the second computing system moving the first pointer on
the second display device responsive to second pointer control
data received from the first computing system; and
responsive to third pointer control data received from the
first computing system, the second computing system selecting
a first data item upon the second display device indicated by the
first pointer and storing the first data item within the second
computing system in association with the first pointer,
wherein the first pointer remains under control of the first
computing system while the second pointer remains under
control of the second computing system, wherein
2
Appeal2017-010315
Application 14/102,695
responsive to detecting that the first pointer is located
within a designated region upon the second display device,
wherein the designated region of the second display device is
associated with the first computing system, the method further
comprises:
displaying the first pointer upon the first display device;
discontinuing display of the first pointer upon the second
display device; and
sending the first data item from the second computing
system to the first computing system.
REJECTI0NS 3 ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Johanson et al. (US 2004/0201628 Al; published Oct. 14, 2004) (hereinafter
"Johanson"), Johanson et al. (US 2006/0195791 Al; published Aug. 31,
2006) (hereinafter "Johanson2"), Meyers et al. (US 2005/0193143 Al;
published Sept. 1, 2005) (hereinafter "Meyers"), and Hesselink et al. (US
2005/0149481 Al; published July 7, 2005) (hereinafter "Hesselink"). Final
Act. 9-16.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Johanson, Johanson2,
Meyers, Hesselink, and Urbach (US 7,950,026 Bl; issued May 24, 2011)
(hereinafter "Urbach"). Final Act. 16-19.
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejections under§ 112(a); § 112(b); and§ 101.
Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2017-010315
Application 14/102,695
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions for the reasons discussed below.
(1) Claim Grouping
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 1 7, 18, and 20 ( the
claims subject to the first§ 103 rejection) as a group and state that the claims
"stand or fall together with independent claim 1." App. Br. 19. Appellants
also group for argument claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 (the claims subject to the
second § 103 rejection) with independent claim 1. App. Br. 21.
Accordingly, we decide this appeal based on the arguments Appellants make
with respect to claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016) ("[T]he
failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped
together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must
consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.").
(2) Disputed limitation
Appellants argue that the combination of Johanson, Johanson2,
Meyers, and Hesselink fails to teach or suggest claim 1 's limitation of:
responsive to detecting that the first pointer is located
within a designated region upon the second display device,
wherein the designated region of the second display device is
associated with the first computing system[,] ... sending the
first data item from the second computing system to the first
computing system.
App. Br. 20. Appellants argue that this limitation, put differently,
"require[s] that when a pointer (controlled by a local computer) but located
in a remote computer is moved into a region, on the remote computer, that is
associated with the local computer, data in the remote computer is sent to the
4
Appeal2017-010315
Application 14/102,695
local computer. "4 Id. Appellants' arguments are directed to the teachings of
Hesselink and Meyers. App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 2-9.
Appellants argue that Hesselink fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation because Hesselink teaches that a "local user may transfer data
from the remote computer by dragging it off the locally displayed remote
desktop and onto the display or desktop of the local computer." App. Br. 20
( quoting Hesselink ,r 179). More specifically, Appellants argue Hesselink
fails to teach a "region, on the remote computer, that is associated with the
local computer, that is the trigger for the data being moved." Id. (emphasis
added); see also Reply Br. 5 (arguing that in "Hesselink, the 'designated
region' and the ultimate destination of the first data item are on the same
computer (i.e., computing device). However, the claimed invention
contemplates that the 'designated region' and the ultimate designation of the
first data item be on different computing devices."). In addition, Appellants
argue that the Examiner's cited portions of Meyers "merely refer[] to how a
pointer enters one region (i.e., 522 or 524) on one computer and reappears
on the other region (i.e., 524 or 522) on the other computer." Reply Br. 8-9
( citing Meyers Fig. 5, ,r,r 64--65).
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Johanson,
Johanson2, Meyers, and Hesselink teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 8-11; Final Act. 11-14. The Examiner finds that Johanson2
4 The Examiner and Appellants use (i) the term "local" interchangeably with
the claim term "first" and (ii) the term "remote" interchangeably with the
claim term "second," because Hesselink uses "local" and "remote" to
differentiate computers, despite the Examiner's finding that "first" and
"second" in claim 1 refers to "just any two computing systems/displays."
E.g., Ans. 8-9; Reply Br. 2. We adopt this convention and likewise use the
terms interchangeably, as our decision does not tum on this distinction.
5
Appeal2017-010315
Application 14/102,695
teaches "pointer-migration and multiple-display aspects as well as the
selection ('copy') of data items on a migrated-to display [(i.e., a remote
display)] and transfer ('paste') of the selected data item across machines
[(i.e., to a local computer)] based on subsequent pointer migration across
displays." Ans. 11; see also Final Act. 10-11 (citing Johanson2 ,r,r 3, 30, 61,
64), 14 (citing Johanson2 ,r,r 24, 28) (finding that Johanson2 teaches or
suggests "capturing data [(i.e., a data item)] from a remote machine that is
then accessible from any of the connected machines[, including a local
computer]"). The Examiner finds "it is a trivial variation of design to
provide a region upon the moved-to [(i.e., remote)] display device that
triggers the return of the pointer ( and therefore, the transfer of J ohanson2 's
selected data item) to the original display." Ans. 9.
The Examiner finds that Meyers teaches the designated region.
Ans. 9-10. More specifically, the Examiner finds Meyers teaches pointer
movement into "a region upon the moved-to [(i.e., remote)] display device
that triggers the return of the pointer ( and therefore, the transfer of
Johanson2's selected data item) to the original display." Ans. 9, 11; see also
Final Act. 13 (citing Meyers Fig. 5, ,r,r 64---65).
The Examiner finds that Hesselink teaches sending a data item "in the
direction specified by the claim" (i.e., from the remote computer to the local
computer), "based upon movement of the pointer into a display region
associated with the" local computer. Ans. 10-11 (citing Hesselink ,r 179);
Final Act. 14 ( citing same).
6
Appeal2017-010315
Application 14/102,695
We agree with the Examiner's above findings and adopt them as our
own. We find that the combination of Johanson, Johanson2, Meyers, and
Hesselink teaches the disputed limitation. See Johanson2 ,r,r 3, 24, 28, 30,
61; Meyers Fig. 5, ,r 64; Hesselink ,r 179. For example, Johanson2 teaches
that a data item can be selected on a remote display and sent to a local
computer once the pointer is redirected to the local display. See Johanson2
,r,r 30, 61 ("When a user performs a copy on a remote machine, the
information is copied into the buffer for the user[, and] ... [t]hat user can
then paste the copied information on the same machine or any other machine
in the workspace."). Furthermore, Johanson2 teaches or suggests that the
remote data item can be sent to the local computer in response to redirecting
the pointer back to the local computer. See Johanson2 ,r,r 24 ("[I]nformation
that was bound to the user input device could be transferred to ... where the
user ... redirect[s] [] the user's input device .... automatically as soon as
the input device is redirected, [and alternatively,] ... information can also be
transferred from a remote machine into the user-specific information."), 28,
30. As to Meyers, it teaches a designated region on the remote display that
is associated with the local computer for a user to redirect the pointer from a
remote computer back to a local computer by moving the pointer into the
region. See Meyers Fig. 5, ,r 64 ("[T]he first system 500 ... associate[ s] a
switching display area 522 with routing of local input device data to the
second computer 512[ and,] [t]he second system 512 has a similar switching
area 524 designated for ... retum[ing] processing of the local input device
data to the first computer 500."). Hesselink teaches sending a data item
from the remote computer to the local computer, in response to moving the
7
Appeal2017-010315
Application 14/102,695
pointer on the local display into a designated region ( e.g., local desktop)
associated with the local computer. Hesselink ,r 179.
Appellants focus on Hesselink and Meyers ( and do not address
Johanson2's teachings) individually instead of addressing the combined
teachings of the references to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references"); see
also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) (finding the relevant
inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to
those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the
references). For example, Appellants focus on Hesselink's teaching that the
relevant designated region is located on the local display (see Hesselink
,r 179), while ignoring that Meyers teaches a designated region located on
the remote display for redirecting the pointer to the local computer (see
Meyers ,r 64). Similarly, Appellants argue that Meyers merely teaches
redirecting the pointer to the local computer when the pointer is moved into
the designated region associated with the local computer (see Meyers ,r 64),
while ignoring that (i) Johanson2 teaches automatically sending a selected
data item from a remote computer to a local computer upon being redirected
to the local computer (Johanson2 ,r,r 24, 28), and (ii) Hesselink teaches
sending a selected data item to the local computer upon moving the pointer
into a designated region associated with the local computer (Hesselink
,r 179).
8
Appeal2017-010315
Application 14/102,695
In summary, the combination of Johanson, Johanson2, Meyers, and
Hesselink teaches sending a selected data item from a remote computer to a
local computer in response to detecting on the remote computer's display
that the local computer's pointer is located within a designated region
associated with the local computer. See supra.
Accordingly, we find that the combination of Johanson, Johanson2,
Meyers, and Hesselink teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, and we
sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the
claims grouped therewith.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12,
14--18, and 20.
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
9