Ex Parte Haynes

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 9, 2011

10794831 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER M. HAYNES
____________

Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAY P. LUCAS, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

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 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 20-28, which are all the claims pending
in the application. Claims 6, 8, 9, 17-19, 29, and 30 were cancelled during
prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates generally to the field of software. More
particularly, the invention on appeal is directed to a system and method of
window navigation in a GUI environment. (Spec. 1).
Representative Claim

1. A method of navigating within groups of windows in a
GUI environment by a user, comprising:

providing a GUI environment including a plurality of
windows;

establishing first and second groups of windows, each
comprising a subset of two or more but less than all of said
plurality of windows in said GUI environment such that the
windows comprising said first group are related and the
windows comprising said second group are related;

cycling focus successively between the windows in said
first group in response to a focus cycle command input by the
user;

shifting focus to a window in said second group in
response to a focus shift command input by the user; and

cycling focus successively between the windows in said
second group in response to said focus cycle command input by
the user.

Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 10-12, 20, 22, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Gelsinger (US
5,892,511) and Wenstrand (US 5,544,299).

Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831

3
2. Claims 2, 4, 5, 23, 24, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Gelsinger, Wenstrand and
Jaaskelainen (US 5,835,088).
3. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gelsinger, Wenstrand, Jaaskelainen, and
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
4. Claims 7, 15, 16, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Gelsinger, Wenstrand and
CE Software Inc., “QuicKeys for Macintosh”, 2000 (hereinafter
“CE”).
5. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gelsinger, Wenstrand and Cutler (US
2005/0188329 A1).

First-stated rejection under § 103 over Gelsinger and Wenstrand
Claims 1, 10-12, 20, 22, 25, and 27
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal regarding the
first-stated rejection over Gelsinger and Wenstrand:

Under §103, did the Examiner err in determining that the
combination of Gelsinger and Wenstrand would have
taught or suggested cycling focus between windows in
first and second groups using a focus cycle command and
shifting focus between first and second groups using a
focus shift command, within the meaning of
representative claim 1?
Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Gelsinger teaches:
changing the active set of windows to a second set of
windows from the multiple sets of windows in response
to a user generated input, wherein the second set of
windows includes multiple windows of the plurality of
windows which are not in a previous set of active
windows.

(Col. 13, ll. 24-29).

2. Wenstrand teaches focus groups comprised of a plurality
of data entry fields where focus may be shifted between
data entry fields (i.e., where only one data entry field is
active at a given time) by using a predefined key, such as
a carriage return or tab key, according to one
embodiment. (Col. 2, ll. 16-26, 59; col. 3, ll. 17-19 see
also Fig. 1).

3. Wenstrand teaches that a user may enter or leave (exit) a
focus group using a predetermined key, such as a
function key. (Col. 3, ll. 34-35, 44-46).

4. Appellant’s Specification discloses that the focus cycle
command input and focus shift command input may each
comprise a keystroke combination. (Paras. [0015, 0017]).

Additional findings of fact appear below.

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal for the first-stated rejection on the basis of representative claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831

5
Appellant acknowledges that “Gelsinger discloses grouping windows
in a GUI environment into multiple groups, and iteratively displaying
different groups of windows at the top-most GUI layer.” (App. Br. 6).
However, Appellant asserts that “Wenstrand does not support the
broad contention ‘that it is possible to cycle focus between items in a group’
–for any ‘items’ in any ‘group,’” (App. Br. 7). Instead, Appellant avers that
Wenstrand merely teaches “cycling focus between data entry fields in a
single window.” (Id.). Appellant further contends that “Wenstrand teaches
only shifting focus within windows, not of windows.” (App. Br. 9)(emphasis
in original). Appellant also contends that “Gelsinger and Wenstrand –
separately or in combination – fail[] to teach or suggest receiving a focus
shift command (as opposed to a focus cycle command) . . . .” (App. Br. 11).
Based upon our review of the evidence, we find Appellant’s
arguments unpersuasive. As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 9),
Appellant has conceded that “Gelsinger discloses grouping windows in a
GUI environment into multiple groups, and iteratively displaying different
groups of windows at the top-most GUI layer.” (App. Br. 6). We further
observe that Gelsinger teaches “changing the active set of windows to a
second set of windows from the multiple sets of windows in response to a
user generated input . . . .” (FF 1). We broadly but reasonably read
Appellant’s claimed first and second groups of windows on Gelsinger’s
multiple sets of windows. (Id.). On this record, we find Gelsinger alone
would have taught or suggested the focus shift command (i.e., user input to
change between window sets or groups), within the meaning of
representative claim 1. (FF 1).
Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831

6
We also find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that “Wenstrand
teaches only shifting focus within windows, not of windows.” (App. Br.
9)(emphasis in original). We conclude that the language of representative
claim 1 does not preclude the Examiner’s broader interpretation, i.e., that a
broad but reasonable interpretation of Appellant’s windows encompasses the
windows of the individual data entry fields shown in Wenstrand’s Figure 1.
We agree with the Examiner that nothing in language of claim 1 requires a
window to be associated with an application, as imputed by Appellant’s
arguments on page 7 of the Brief.
While Appellant additionally contends that Wenstrand “does not teach
a user entering a focus shift command input” (App. Br. 11, ¶ 1), we observe
that Appellant’s Specification clearly describes both the claimed focus shift
and cycle commands in terms of keystroke input. (FF 4). Thus, Appellant’s
argument is undermined by Wenstrand’s teaching of a user shifting between
focus groups comprised of a plurality of data entry fields (windows) by
using a predetermined key, such as a function key. (FF 3).
On this record we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
representative claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the § 103 rejection of claim
1, as well as claims 10-12, 20, 22, 25, and 27 which fall therewith. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Second-stated rejection under § 103 over Gelsinger, Wenstrand, and
Jaaskelainen
Appellant contends that the tertiary Jaaskelainen reference fails to
cure the purported deficiencies of Gelsinger and Wenstrand. (App. Br. 11).
However, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s proffered combination
Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831

7
of Gelsinger and Wenstrand for the reasons discussed supra regarding
representative claim 1. Therefore, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s
argument urging the patentability of claims 2, 4, 5, 23, 24, and 28 based on
the dependency from independent claim 1, or independent claim 22, or
independent claim 27. Accordingly, we affirm the § 103 rejection of claims
2, 4, 5, 23, 24, and 28 for the same reasons discussed above regarding claims
1, 22, and 27.

Third-stated rejection under § 103 over Gelsinger, Wenstrand, Jaaskelainen,
and AAPA.
Appellant contends that dependent claim 3 is allowable for the same
reasons previously discussed regarding claim 1. (App. Br. 12). However, we
found unpersuasive Appellant’s arguments urging the patentability of claim
1, as discussed above. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 3 for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1.

Fourth-stated rejection under § 103 over Gelsinger, Wenstrand, and CE
Claims 7, 15, 16, 21, and 26
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal for the fourth-stated rejection on the basis of representative claim
7. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal regarding the
Examiner’s fourth-stated rejection over Gelsinger, Wenstrand, and CE:
Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831

8
Under §103, did the Examiner err in determining that the combination
of Gelsinger, Wenstrand and CE would have taught or suggested a focus
shift command input that comprises the combination of one or more qualifier
keys and a vertical directional key, within the meaning of representative
claim 7?
FINDINGS OF FACT
5. CE teaches that a hot key is a combination of keys including
Ctrl, and “can be virtually any combination.” (CE, page 1,
under “TRIGGERS” heading).
6. Appellant’s Specification describes exemplary qualifier keys as
CTRL, ALT, and SHIFT. (Spec. 6, para. [0015]).

ANALYSIS
Appellant notes that claims 7, 21, and 26 recite specific keystroke
combinations for the focus shift and cycle commands. (App. Br. 12).
Appellant contends that the relied-upon CE advertising flyer does not
disclose or render obvious any specific keystrokes and the proposition that it
discloses every possible keystroke is untenable. (Id.).
Representative claim 7 recites that the “focus shift command input
comprises the combination of one or more qualifier keys and a vertical
directional key.” We find the CE reference expressly teaches the use of: (1)
a combination of keys, and (2) the CTRL key as part of the key combination
(i.e., a “qualifier” key – see FF 6). (FF 5).
While CE provides no specific teaching of the use of a directional
(arrow) key, we find CE clearly guides the artisan that a (hot) key
combination input “can be virtually any combination.” (FF 5).
Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831

9
Our reviewing courts have instructed that “when a patent ‘simply
arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007)(citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
Here, we find the substitution of a directional (arrow) key would have
yielded no more than an artisan would have expected from such an
arrangement. Given that the CE reference expressly teaches that the key
combination can be “virtually any combination” (FF 5), we find the weight
of the evidence supports the Examiner’s legal conclusion it would have been
obvious to an artisan to use a directional (arrow) key as part of the key
combination for the command. (Ans. 7, 11).
On this record we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
representative claim 7. Accordingly, we affirm the § 103 rejection of claim
7, as well as claims 15, 16, 21, and 26 which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Fifth-stated rejection under § 103 over Gelsinger, Wenstrand, and Cutler
Claims 13 and 14
Appellant urges the patentability of these claims based on the
following contentions:
Claims 13 and 14 recite forming the groups of claim 1 by
dragging and dropping a first window onto a group icon
on a second window to establish the groups recited in
claim 1. Note that claim 13 recites a group icon element
on the second window, as depicted in Fig. 2 of the
Specification as element 48. Cutler is completely silent as
to any group icon on any window, dragging a first
Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831

10
window to the group icon of a second window, or even
functionally grouping windows at all, much less by use of
the group icon. Cutler merely discloses changing the
virtual location of a window from a first screen to a
second screen by dragging and dropping an associated
icon from a first location in a navigational aid to a second
location. Since Cutler fails to teach or suggest all
limitations of claims 13 or 14, the § 103 rejections
thereof are improper and must be reversed.

(Suppl. Brief received Aug. 13, 2008, p. 2)(emphasis added).
We begin our analysis by observing that the Examiner fails to respond
to Appellant’s aforementioned argument (claims 13 and 14) in the
“Response to Arguments” section of the Answer.
Based upon our review of the evidence, we agree with Appellant’s
contention that “Cutler is completely silent as to any group icon on any
window, dragging a first window to the group icon of a second window, or
even functionally grouping windows at all, much less by use of the group
icon.” (Suppl. Brief 2).
While the Examiner relies on Gelsinger for teaching the grouping of
windows (Ans. 3), we are in accord with Appellant that Cutler does not
teach nor fairly suggest establishing a group relationship between windows
by dragging a window to a group icon, within the meaning of dependent
claims 13 and 14. At best, we find the relied-upon portion of Cutler merely
teaches clicking and dragging a sub-application window from one screen to
another screen. (Cutler, 7, para. [0059]). Therefore, for essentially the same
reasons argued by Appellant, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 13 and 14.

Appeal 2009-007890
Application 10/794,831

11
DECISION
We affirm the § 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 10-12, 15, 16, and
20-28.
We reverse the § 103 rejection of claims 13 and 14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
ORDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

pgc

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