10946764 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2011)

Ex Parte Park

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 24, 2011

10946764 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2011)

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. 10/946,764 09/22/2004 Ju-Young Park 678-1567 9292 66547 7590 02/24/2011 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER KEATON, SHERROD L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/24/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JU-YOUNG PARK ____________________ Appeal 2009-008252 Application 10/946,7641 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JAY P. LUCAS, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, and CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 1 Application filed September 22, 2004. Appellant claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of the Republic of Korea patent application No. 8749/2004 filed February 10, 2004. The real party in interest is Samsung Electronics, Co. 2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-008252 Application 10/946,764 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals from a final rejection of claims 1 to 13 under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s invention relates to a system for providing multiple window environments in a mobile computing system (claim 1). In the words of Appellant: [A] CPU terminates [a] sub-window system being executed, and dismounts [an] operating user partition, i.e., [a] user partition corresponding to the terminated sub-window system. Then, the CPU mounts the user partition designated corresponding to [a] key input for switching the sub-window system among the user partitions, and then executes the sub-window system of the mounted user partition. Thereafter, the CPU returns to the decision steps. Accordingly, the window environment is switched over to the sub- window system selected by the user. (Spec. 7, ll. 9 to 16). The following claim illustrates the claims on appeal: Claim 1: 1. A system for providing multiple window environments in a mobile computing system, comprising: a non-volatile memory for storing 2 Appeal 2009-008252 Application 10/946,764 a plurality of user partitions in which a plurality of sub-window systems having different user interfaces and application programs are installed, and a system mounting engine executable according to the steps of: detecting occurrence of a predetermined event, terminating the sub-window system being executed among the sub-window systems, dismounting the user partition corresponding to the terminated sub-window system, mounting the user partition designated corresponding to the predetermined event among the user partitions, and executing the sub-window system of the mounted user partition; and a central processing unit (CPU) for executing the system mounting engine in response to occurrence of the predetermined event. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Stucka US 5,596,702 Jan. 21, 1997 Small US 5,642,303 Jun. 24, 1997 Sagasaki US 6,445,973 B1 Sep. 03, 2002 Okude US 7,069,519 B1 Jun. 27, 2006 (filed Sep. 25, 2000) Chaskar US 7,170,881 B2 Jan. 30, 2007 (filed Apr. 29, 2004) 3 Appeal 2009-008252 Application 10/946,764 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: R1: Claims 1 to 4 and 8 to 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Okude in view of Stucka. R2: Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Okude in view of Stucka and Chaskar. R3: Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Okude in view of Stucka and Small. R4: Claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Okude in view of Stucka and Sagasaki. ISSUE The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue specifically turns on whether the cited prior art references render obvious Appellant’s claim limitation “terminating the sub-window system being executed among the sub-window systems” (claim 1). FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence. Disclosure 1. Appellant has invented a method and system for terminating a first sub-window system being executed among the sub-window systems and for executing a second sub-system. (See claim 1.) 4 Appeal 2009-008252 Application 10/946,764 Okude 2. The Okude reference discloses two operating systems functioning “simultaneously” (col 5, ll. 54 to 55). PRINCIPLE OF LAW Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate Examiner error. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). ANALYSIS Argument with respect to the rejection of claims 1 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) [R1 to R4] The Examiner has rejected the noted claims for being obvious over Okude in view of various prior art references, pages 4 to 8 of the Examiner’s Answer. The Examiner finds that Okude’s disclosure of time-sharing by the CPU for purposes of processing commands from the first and the second operating system meets Appellant’s claim limitation “terminating the sub- window system being executed among the sub-window systems” (claim 1). (See Ans. 9.) In reply, Appellant argues that “time sharing relates to the use of idle time of one operating system to service the other operating system.” (App. Br. 5, middle). Appellant contends that “[w]hile the execution of tasks of one operating system may be terminated when tasks of a second operating system are executed, the time sharing of Okude fails to disclose the termination of the operating system itself.” (Id.). 5 Appeal 2009-008252 Application 10/946,764 We agree with Appellant’s argument for the following reasons. We find that Appellant has invented a method and system for terminating a first sub-window system being executed among the sub-window systems and for executing a second sub-system (FF#1). In contrast, we find that the Okude reference discloses two operating systems functioning “simultaneously” (FF#2). We find nothing in the patent that discloses or suggests that Okude’s first operating system pauses or terminates while a second operating system processes a request. To the contrary, Okude explicitly says the two operating systems function “simultaneously” (FF#2). We thus find Okude’s disclosure fails to meet Appellant’s “terminating” step of claim 1. In addition, none of the other references cited by the Examiner resolves the above-stated deficiency found in Okude. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection R1 of claim 1. The rejection of claims 2 to 4 is reversed due to their dependency from claim 1. With regard to claims 5 to 13, we apply the same reasoning as applied to claim 1, and reverse the rejections R2 to R4. CONCLUSION OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 13. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections R1 to R4 of claims 1 to 13. REVERSED 6 Appeal 2009-008252 Application 10/946,764 peb THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 BROADHOLLOW ROAD SUITE 210E MELVILLE, NY 11747 7