Ex Parte HOU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2019

14292509 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/292,509 05/30/2014
152569 7590 01/31/2019
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - VMware
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sabrina HOU
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.
B642 5224
EXAMINER
HO,RUAYL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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):
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
vmware_admin@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SABRINA HOU and PENG GUO
Appeal2018-005865
Application 14/292,509
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-22. Wehavejurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2018-005865
Application 14/292,509
BACKGROUND
The present patent application involves techniques that allow "users to
input keyboard key combinations via context menu shortcuts." Specification
Abstract, filed May 30, 2014 ("Spec."). Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed invention:
1. A method for performing a key combination operation on
an operating system or application running in a virtual machine
that is instantiated in a host machine that provides a remote
virtual desktop of the virtual machine, comprising:
presenting a function toolbar on the remote virtual desktop
of the virtual machine that is displayed on a client computing
device that has a touch interface and is connected to the host
machine over a network, wherein the function toolbar includes a
plurality of function keys;
in response to receiving a first touch input on one of the
function keys, determining, by the client computing device, that
the first touch input is a tap and hold event and presenting a
context menu which includes a selectable object indicating a
shortcut for a combination of the one of the function keys and
one or more other keys; and
in response to receiving a second touch input on the
selectable object, translating, by the client computing device, the
second touch input into a keyboard-based command a
simultaneous operation of the one of the function keys and the
one or more other keys, and transmitting the keyboard-based
command from the client computing device to the virtual
machine over the network, such that the keyboard-based
command is executed on the operating system or application
running in the virtual machine.
Appeal Brief 17, filed February 6, 2018 ("App. Br.").
2
Appeal2018-005865
Application 14/292,509
1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15,
17, and 20-22
REJECTIONS
§ 103
Isaacson, 1 Nylund, 2
and Lindsay3
5, 12, and 19 § 103
Isaacson, Nylund,
Lindsay, and Swanson4
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and Appellants'
arguments, and Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred.
As consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner's findings,
conclusions, and reasoning in the Final Office Action mailed July 7, 2017
("Final Act.") and Answer mailed March 19, 2018 ("Ans.").
We address Appellants' arguments in tum. Appellants have waived
arguments Appellants failed to adequately or timely present. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37 (c)(l)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) ( explaining that when "an appellant fails to present arguments
on a particular issue ... the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally
review those uncontested aspects of the rejection").
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites "in response to receiving a first touch input on one of
the function keys ... presenting a context menu which includes a selectable
object indicating a shortcut for a combination of the one of the function keys
and one or more other keys." App. Br. 17 (emphasis added). Appellants
1 Nylund et al. (US 2015/0026586 Al; Jan. 22, 2015).
2 Isaacson et al. (US 2015/0278922 Al; Oct. 1, 2015).
3 Lindsay (US 2013/0093682 Al; Apr. 18, 2013).
4 Swanson et al. (US 2004/0239638 Al; Dec. 2, 2004).
3
Appeal2018-005865
Application 14/292,509
contend that Isaacson does not teach or suggest the emphasized "presenting"
limitation. App. Br. 9--12. Appellants assert that the limitation requires on-
screen function keys and that "[t]he on-screen function key that is pressed is
itself displayed in the context menu." App. Br. 8-10 ( emphasis added).
Appellants contend Isaacson does not teach or suggest that "the on-screen
function key that is pressed is itself displayed in the context menu within a
selectable object." App. Br. 11.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The "presenting"
limitation requires presenting a context menu that includes "a selectable
object indicating a shortcut/or a combination of the one of the function keys
and one or more other keys." App. Br. 17 (emphases added). Even if
"indicating a shortcut" means "displaying a shortcut"-and it is far from
clear that it does-the limitation does not require the shortcut in tum include
an identifier of the recited key combination. Rather than recite "a shortcut
including an identifier of a combination of' keys or something similar, the
limitation simply recites "a shortcut for a combination" of keys. The word
"for" has many common meanings, including "concerning." See, e.g., For,
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003). Thus, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of "a shortcut for a combination of the one
of the function keys and one or more other keys" encompasses a shortcut
that simply concerns this key combination.
Appellants suggest that Figure 4B of Appellants' drawings requires us
to interpret the limitation more narrowly. See App. Br. 10-11; Reply Brief
2--4, filed May 18, 2018 ("Reply Br."). Although Figure 4B shows part of a
process that causes an identifier of a selected function key to appear in each
of the displayed key combination shortcuts, Appellants' written description
4
Appeal2018-005865
Application 14/292,509
makes clear that Figure 4 B is merely an example of the claimed method. See,
e.g., Spec. ,r,r 9 ("Figure 4 illustrates exemplary operations for inputting key
combinations using context menu shortcuts, according to an embodiment of
the present disclosure." ( emphasis added)), 39 (same). Although we interpret
claims in light of their associated specification, we generally do not import
examples from the specification into the claims. See, e.g., Phillips v. A WH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315-23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane); see also In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("We
have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred
embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment
described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification."). Appellants have
offered no persuasive reason to do so here.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the "presenting"
limitation discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Isaacson
teaches or suggests the limitation. As found by the Examiner, Isaacson
discloses a menu that includes "shortcut keys which the user can press to
select the options without using the mouse." Isaacson ,r 77; Final Office
Action 4, mailed July 7, 2017 ( quoting Isaacson ,r 77). Isaacson explains the
menu can show "that the user can press alt-I, alt-2, or alt-3 to select the
various drop up menu options, or ctrl-1, ctrl-2, or ctrl-3, or some other single
key or key combination to select the various drop down menu options."
Isaacson ,r 77. Because the disclosed shortcuts execute functions mapped to
various key combinations, the shortcuts are "for," that is the shortcuts
concern, the various key combinations. See App. Br. 14 (acknowledging that
5
Appeal2018-005865
Application 14/292,509
Isaacson teaches interacting with menu options by "us[ing] a touch screen to
select an option"). 5
Appellants rely on the above arguments to show that Isaacson also
fails to teach or suggest "in response to receiving a second touch input on
the selectable object, translating ... the second touch input into a keyboard-
based command a simultaneous operation of the one of the function keys
and the one or more other keys" as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 14
( arguing that although Isaacson teaches using a touch screen to select an
option, Isaacson does not teach "the selectable object must contain the one
of the function keys that initially displayed the context menu" ( emphasis
modified)). We find these arguments unpersuasive for the reasons discussed
above.
Finally, Appellants appear to argue that Nylund and Lindsay each fail
to teach or suggest this limitation. See App. Br. 14--15. But the Examiner
concluded this limitation would have been obvious over a combination of
Isaacson, Nylund, and Lindsay. Final Act. 3-5. "[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references," In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413,426 (CCPA 1981).
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
5 In response to the arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner offered a
construction of the "presenting" limitation in the Answer. Answer 8-9,
mailed March 19, 2018. Appellants argue this construction is "unreasonably
broad." Reply Br. 4. We agree and do not adopt this construction.
6
Appeal2018-005865
Application 14/292,509
Remaining Claims
Because Appellants have not presented separate, persuasive
patentability arguments for claims 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-22, we also
sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims.
CONCLUSION
1, 3, 6-8,
Isaacson,
1, 3, 6-8,
10, 13-15, 10, 13-15,
§ 103 Nylund, and
17, and 20- 17, and 20-
Lindsay
22 22
Isaacson,
5, 12,and
§ 103
Nylund, 5, 12,and
19 Lindsay, and 19
Swanson
1, 3, 5-8,
Summary
10, 12-15,
17, and 19-
22
No 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.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7