Ex Parte LouchDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 201913340605 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/340,605 12/29/2011 John 0. Louch 150004 7590 03/29/2019 DENTONS US LLP - Apple 4655 Executive Dr Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92121 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. Pl 1045US 1/77770000271101 8992 EXAMINER HAILU, TADESSE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2019 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): patents.us@dentons.com dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN 0. LOUCH Appeal2017-005658 Application 13/340,605 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-8, 11, and 14--20, which are all the claims pending in this application. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 An Oral Hearing was held for this appeal on March 12, 2019. 2 Appellant identifies Apple, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. 3 Claims 10 and 23 have been canceled previously, claims 9, 13, and 21 have been allowed, and claims 12, 22, 24, and 25 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim which would be allowable if rewritten in an independent form. Final Act. 20-21. Appeal2017-005658 Application 13/340,605 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's disclosure is directed to enabling a user to configure the user interface on portable devices displaying a plurality of icons. See Spec. ,r,r 7-10. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 1. An electronic device, comprising: a display; a touch-sensitive surface; one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: displaying a plurality of windows on the display, the plurality of windows including a first window for a first application displayed in a frontmost position on the display and a second window displayed in a lower position than the frontmost position, and the plurality of windows having a layer order; detecting a first gesture moving in a first direction on the touch sensitive surface, the first direction on the touch sensitive surface corresponding to a first direction on the display; and, in response to detecting the first gesture moving in the first direction on the touch sensitive surface: moving the first window across the display in the first direction on the display until the first window is moved partially or fully off the display; displaying the second window in the frontmost position on the display; and maintaining the layer order of the plurality of windows. 2 Appeal2017-005658 Application 13/340,605 The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 20 stand rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Boule (US 2008/0168401 Al; pub. July 10, 2008) and Conrad (US 2007/0106955 Al; pub. May 10, 2007). See Final Act. 2-10. Claims 2, 5, 15, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Boule, Conrad, and Schaffer (US 2011/0179386 Al; pub. July 21, 2011). See Final Act. 10-18. Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Boule, Conrad, and Duarte (US 2009/0293007 Al; pub. Nov. 26, 2009). See Final Act. 18-20. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Boule discloses an electronic device having some recited elements of the claim, including "the plurality of windows having a layer order." Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner also finds Boule does not disclose "displaying a plurality of windows, the plurality of windows including a first window for a first application displayed in a frontmost position on the display and a second window displayed in a lower position than the frontmost position," for which the Examiner relies on Figures 7 A-7C of Conrad. Final Act. 3--4. Appellant contends the Examiner's rejection is in error because the combination of the applied prior art does not "teach or suggest 'displaying a plurality of windows on the display, ... the plurality of windows having a layer order' and 'maintaining the layer order of the plurality of windows' as the display of windows is manipulated in response to the detection of a first 3 Appeal2017-005658 Application 13/340,605 gesture." App. Br. 16. Appellant explains the Specification describes such arrangement, with respect to Figure 5A, as follows: In the example illustrated in Figure 5A, there are five windows displayed, having the following layer order (from front to back): an Application A window (502-1) in the front, an Application B window (502-2), an Application C window (502- 3), an Application A window (502-4), and an Application D window (502-5) in the back.84 In this illustration, Application A has two windows displayed: 502-1 (the frontmost) and 502-4. App. Br. 18 ( citing ,r 119). Appellant continues with the description of Figures 5B-5P and explains how windows are moved off of the display fully or partially and brought back onto the display while the layer order remains unchanged. App. Br. 19-25 (citing ,r,r 1190-125, 129-131, 135-137, 139, 164, and 180). Citing paragraphs 30-32 of Boule, Appellant argues "only one window of an application at a time, even if that application has multiple windows" or "[w]hen multiple windows are open, one is displayed and the others are hidden." App. Br. 25-26. 4 In response, the Examiner explains: Boule clearly discloses a first application displayed in a front most position on the display and a second window displayed in a lower position (hidden) than the front most position. It is the examiner's position that Boule could have anticipated claim 1, that is, Boule discloses displaying one window (top or viewable window) over the others (hidden windows). But to explicitly visualize the displayed window arrangements or windows layer order, the examiner added references Conrad ( see at least Figs 1-7C). As visualized in Conrad a plurality of windows are shown rendered in layers, that is, a plurality of windows are shown rendered and maintaining their layer order. 4 We do not address Appellant's other contentions because this contention is dispositive of the issue on appeal. 4 Appeal2017-005658 Application 13/340,605 Accordingly, Boule in view of Conrad clearly and explicitly discloses the above argued language of claim 1. Ans. 4 (emphasis added). Appellant contends the Examiner's restated position in the Answer is still unresponsive to the argued point regarding the layered order of the "plurality of windows" because Boule clearly discloses that only one window is displayed while the other windows are hidden. Reply Br. 6. With respect to Conrad, Appellant asserts the Examiner has not shown how the cited Figures "show anything about maintaining a layer order of a plurality of windows as windows are moved partially or fully off the display." Reply Br. 12. Based on a review of Conrad, we are persuaded by Appellant's contention that the Examiner has not explained how converting windows into a desk drawer as the window is dragged into the bottom region of the display meets the recited layer order of the "plurality of windows." In fact, Conrad moves each window to the bottom of the display and converts them into desk drawers without any concern for maintaining a layer order for the windows as they are removed from the screen and moved back out of the drawers. See Conrad ,r,r 6, 8, and 50. Similarly, the Examiner's findings regarding Boule confirm Appellant's contention that only one window is displayed while the other windows are hidden but do not show the displayed, or even open, windows have any layer order. See Ans. 4. In summary, Appellant's arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's position with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 2, 14, and 15, which recite similar limitations. The Examiner has not identified any teachings in the other applied prior art that would make up for the above-mentioned deficiency. We therefore do not 5 Appeal2017-005658 Application 13/340,605 sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 14, and 15, as well as claims 3-8, 11, and 16-20 dependent therefrom. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8, 11, and 14--20. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation