10343333 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2012)

Ex Parte Martyn

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 23, 2012

10343333 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/343,333 08/27/2003 Mathieu Kennedy Martyn 990-001.563 1608 20413 7590 10/24/2012 CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.a.r.l. c/o WARE, FRESSOLA, VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON LLP BRADFORD GREEN, BUILDING FIVE 755 MAIN STREET, P O BOX 224 MONROE, CT 06468 EXAMINER VU, THANH T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/24/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MATHIEU KENNEDY MARTYN ____________ Appeal 2010-008003 Application 10/343,333 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before, JOSIAH C. COCKS, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008003 Application 10/343,333 2 SUMMARY Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 14-40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S. C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention concerns a computing device which displays an application summary window listing applications and functions within the applications, and wherein a user’s selection of a function launches the application and initiates processing of the function. (Spec. 3, ll. 15-21). Claim 14 is illustrative. 14. A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a main menu listing at least a first application, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu, wherein the application summary window displays a limited list of at least one function offered within the first application, each function in the list being selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected function, and wherein the application summary window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched state. (App. Br. 11). Appeal 2010-008003 Application 10/343,333 3 THE REJECTIONS Claims 14-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 5,815,142 (“Allard”), US 6,121,968 ("Arcuri"), and US 6,160,554 (“Krause”). ANALYSIS The positions of the Examiner and the Appellant are detailed in the Appeal Brief filed on August 31, 2009, the Examiner’s Answer mailed on November 11, 2010, and the Reply Brief filed on January 11, 2010. Appellant argues the patentability of claims 14-40 as a group, and we treat them together, with claim 14 being illustrative. The Examiner finds that Allard teaches a computing device with an application summary window that can be reached directly from a main menu and which displays a list of at least one function offered within the application. (Ans. 7). Referencing Figure 6A of Allard, the Examiner asserts that each selection in the list can be selected to launch the application (id.), but the Examiner agrees that Allard does not disclose the application summary window being displayed while the application is in an unlaunched state. (Id. at 3). Appellant notes that the display of functions available in the Mail application shown in Fig. 6A of Allard is generated only because the application has already been launched and is running, as distinguished from the claimed feature of each function in the list being selectable to both launch the application and initiate the selected function. (Reply Br. 2). Allard discloses that screen 6A of Figure 6 displays the main menu representing the “Mail” icon of the screen shown in Figure 4. (Col. 4, ll. 10-12). Thus, we agree with the Appellant’s argument, which is consistent with the Examiner’s initial position, that Allard does not teach the claimed application window being displayed while the application is in an unlaunched state. Appeal 2010-008003 Application 10/343,333 4 The Examiner finds that Krause teaches displaying a preview window related to an application while the application is in an unlaunched state. (Ans. 3, 7). Appellant argues that Krause is concerned solely with files and enabling a user to view information about a file, while the present claims recite a device in which an unlaunched application displays a window listing the functions it can perform once it has been launched. (App. Br. 9). More to the point, however, Appellant also notes that previewing of files without opening them using metadata, as taught by Krause, is different from the claimed feature of allowing the application to be launched and a certain functionality initiated. (Reply Br. 3). Since “each function in the list being selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected function” is a feature of all the claims, we agree with Appellant and reverse the rejection. ORDER The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allard, Arcuri, and Krause is reversed. REVERSED ak