Ex Parte Lyudovyk et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2012

11374444 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte OLGA LYUDOVYK and JAVIER L. JIMENEZ
____________

Appeal 2009-013857
Application 11/374,444
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013857
Application 11/374,444

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “the field of information handling[,]
system application alerts, and more particularly to a system and method for
managing alerts presented by an application running on an information
handling system.” (Spec. 1:7-9.) Claim 1, which is illustrative of the
invention, reads as follows:
1. A system for managing application alerts presented at an
information handling system display, the system comprising:
a processor;
an operating system running on the processor, the operating
system having a create API to create windows for applications
and a show API to show the created windows at the display;
and
an alert queue module interfaced with the operating system, the
alert queue module operable to detect creation of a window for
an application, to determine that the window is associated with
an inactive application, and to selectively suppress the window
associated with the inactive application based on one or more
predetermined parameters.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Lim (US 2007/0074128 A1, Mar. 29, 2007).
Claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lim in view of Backus (US
2006/0085758 A1, Apr. 20, 2006).
Appeal 2009-013857
Application 11/374,444

3
Claims 15 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lim and Backus in view of Fein (US 6,565,608 B1, May
20, 2003).
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the
Briefs ((Supplemental) App. Br.1 filed Feb. 3, 2009; Reply Br. filed June 11,
2009) and the Answer (Ans. mailed Apr. 17, 2009) for the respective
positions of Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).

ISSUES
The pivotal issues presented by Appellants’ arguments are:
Does Lim disclose “an alert queue module . . . [that] selectively
suppress[es] [a] window associated with [an] inactive application based on
one or more predetermined parameters,” as recited in claim 1? (See App.
Br. 3; Reply Br. 1.)
Does the combination of Lim and Backus teach or suggest “an icon
presented at the display indicating suppression of one or more system tray
alerts from presentation[,] and a system tray alert queue selectively
displayed by activation of the icon, the system tray alert queue listing the
suppressed system tray alerts,” as recited in claim 16? (See App. Br. 3-4.)

1 The Appeal Brief filed Dec. 9, 2008, has not been considered as it is
deemed to have been superseded and replaced by the Supplemental Appeal
Brief filed Feb. 3, 2009.
Appeal 2009-013857
Application 11/374,444

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
We have reviewed Appellants’ contentions and arguments (App. Br.
3; Reply Br. 1) in light of the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 3-4) and
explanations (Ans. 12-14). We agree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 3-
4) and explanations (Ans. 12-14) and adopt them as our own. Accordingly
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of (1) independent claim 1; (2)
independent claim 8, regarding which Appellants rely on the arguments
made for claim 1; (3) and dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15, which were not
separately argued.
Claim 16
We have reviewed Appellants’ contentions and arguments (App. Br.
3-4) in light of the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 9-10) and explanations (Ans.
14-15). We agree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 9-10) and
explanations (Ans. 14-15) and adopt them as our own.
For emphasis only, we note that the test of non-obviousness is not
whether one reference can be bodily inserted into another, but, rather, what
the references, when considered together, would suggest to one of ordinary
skill in the art, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Moreover,
one of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton,
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007), whose inferences
and creative steps we may consider, id. at 418. For further emphasis, we
find that the combination of Lim’s selective suppression of alerts with
Backus’s teaching that alerts may be presented as tray icons is no more than
a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does
no more than yield predictable results, id. at 416, and, therefore, amounts to
Appeal 2009-013857
Application 11/374,444

5
a predictable variation that can be implemented by a person of ordinary skill,
id. at 417.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejections of independent claim 16 and
dependent claims 17-20, which were not separately argued.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc