Ex Parte Louch

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

13340605 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

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