Ex Parte Lazaridis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13618818 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/618,818 09/14/2012
90140 7590 09/21/2016
BlackBerry Limited (HFZ)
2200 University A venue East
Waterloo, ON N2K OA 7
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mihal LAZARIDIS
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.
43729-US-CNT 5828
EXAMINER
TAKELE, MESEKER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
portfolioprosecution@blackberry.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIHAL LAZARIDIS,
DANIEL TOBIAS RYDENHAG,
DONALD JAMES LINDSAY,
ALISTAIR ROBERT HAMILTON,
ROBERT SIMON LESSING, JASON TYLER GRIFFIN,
JOSEPH EYTAN BENEDEK, and TODD ANDREW WOOD
Appeal2015-003041
Application 13/618,818
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-30, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-003041
Application 13/618,818
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure is directed to an electronic device and method
of displaying information in response to a gesture. Spec., Title. Claims 1,
15, 21, and 27 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A method comprising:
displaying, in a window, information associated with a
first application on a touch sensitive display of an electronic
device;
detecting, while only the information associated with a
first application is displayed in the window, a gesture on the
touch-sensitive display, which gesture is a request dedicated to
display messaging information;
in response to detecting the gesture:
dividing the window into a first area and a second
area and gradually displaying the messaging information in the
first area while reducing display of the information associated
with the first application in the second area;
while the gesture continues to be detected, varying a size
of the first area along with movement of the gesture;
in response to detecting discontinuation of the gesture:
when a characteristic of the gesture is an indication
to view the messaging information, discontinuing display of the
information associated with the first application and displaying
only the messaging information in the window;
when a characteristic of the gesture in an indication
to terminate display of the messaging information, discontinuing
display of the messaging information and displaying only the
information associated with the first application in the window.
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tseng (US 2009/0249247 Al; Oct. 1, 2009) and Hotelling
(US 8,479,122 B2; July 2, 2013). Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2015-003041
Application 13/618,818
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1
because Tseng does not teach the required "discontinuing display of
information associated with a first application and displaying only the
messaging information in a window," as, "[i]nstead, paragraph [0007] of
Tseng describes displaying messages within a status bar located above the
main area or zone in which an active program (e.g., a first application) is
displayed." App. Br. 12. Particularly, Appellants contend that "[i]n contrast
[to claim 1], Tseng describes continuing to display information associated
with a first application in a window after a gesture associated with viewing
messaging information is discontinued." Id. at 13; see also Tseng Figs. 2A-
2C.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
Tseng teaches or suggests the disputed limitations because Tseng discloses
"when the user selected to expand the messaging information ... the
application area 214 has been shrunk visually here to take up only about
twenty percent of the display" in order to "make room for the messages."
Ans. 19-20 (citing Tseng i-f 45). Thus, as explained by the Examiner, Tseng
merely shrinks the application area so that both the messages and the first
application are visible (see, e.g., Tseng Fig. 2A); at no point, however, does
Tseng discuss discontinuing display of the first application and displaying
only the messaging information in the window, as required by the claim. 1
See App. Br. 14--15.
1 Rather, Tseng is directed to continuously showing any active application at
the same time as displaying messages. See, e.g., Tseng i-fi-1 59---60.
3
Appeal2015-003041
Application 13/618,818
Thus, we are persuaded Tseng does not teach or suggest the claim 1
limitation "discontinuing display of the information associated with the first
application and displaying only the messaging information in the window,"
and the Examiner does not rely on the other cited reference for such
teachings. See Final Act. 2--4. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 15, 21,
and 27 which recite similar limitations. See App. Br. 25, 28, 32. We do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims, or the claims dependent
thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-30 is reversed.
REVERSED
4