Ex Parte Parker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2014

11060607 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014)

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.
11/060,607 02/17/2005 Jason Michael Parker AUS920040843US1 2873
7590 01/24/2014
J. B. Kraft
710 Colorado Street #5C
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
PILLAI, NAMITHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2014 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 JASON MICHAEL PARKER and
HERMAN RODRIGUEZ
__________

Appeal 2011-004694
Application 11/060,607
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD A. ADAMS, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a system
for simplifying the user interactive display interface. The Examiner rejected
the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as International Business
Machines Corporation (see App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2011-004694
Application 11/060,607

2 

Statement of the Case
Background
“The present invention relates to user interactive computer supported
display technology and particularly to windows-type graphical user
interfaces crowded with a variety of windows, often in stacks of overlapped
windows” (Spec. 1, ll. 5-9).
The Claims
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13, 14, and 22-25 are on appeal. Claim 8 is
representative and reads as follows:
8. In a computer controlled interactive display
operations comprising a stored hierarchy of windows that
are displayable to form a displayed plurality of user
interactive windows, a method for simplifying the user
interactive display interface comprising:
determining whether each of said plurality of
windows is active;
presetting an initial time period for which each of said
plurality of windows may remain inactive;
commencing a time-out period responsive to the end
of said initial time period for each of said plurality of
windows;
displaying an indication of the progress of said time-
out period towards termination for each of said windows by
fading each of the windows toward total transparency during
the time-out period for each window;
closing each of said plurality of windows upon
termination of its time-out period; and
enabling the user to restore each of said plurality of
windows to active during said time-out period.

Appeal 2011-004694
Application 11/060,607

3 

The Issue
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13, 14, and 22-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Maddalozzo2 and Chaudhri3 (Ans. 3-8).
The Examiner finds that Maddalozzo teaches “a system for
simplifying the user interactive display interface by determining whether
each of the plurality of windows is active” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds
that “Maddalozzo discloses presetting an initial time period for which each
of plurality of windows may remain inactive . . . A set time period is
kept track of to determine if activity is occurring within a window” (Ans. 4).
The Examiner finds that
Maddalozzo discloses responsive to the end of the initial
time period for each of the plurality of windows for
commencing a time-out period for each of the plurality of
windows (column 5, lines 10-16). The later stage of the
time tracking period includes the commencing of a time-out
period for the windows where this time period is fast
approaching time-out for activity in the windows.
Maddalozzo discloses displayed means for indicating the
progress of time-out period towards termination for each of
the windows (column 5, lines 10-16). Maddalozzo discloses
user interactive means for restoring each of plurality of
windows to active during the time-out period (column 6,
lines 26-33).

(Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that “Chaudhri discloses displaying the
progression of the time-out period towards termination for each of the
window by fading the windows toward total transparency during the time-
out period for each window . . . Chaudhri discloses means for each of the

2 Maddalozzo, Jr. et al., US 6,445,400 B1, issued Sep. 3, 2002.
3 Chaudhri et al., US 7,343,566 B1, issued Mar. 11, 2008. 
Appeal 2011-004694
Application 11/060,607

4 

plurality of windows for closing upon termination of its time-out period”
(Ans. 5).
The Examiner finds it obvious that “Chaudhri’s transparency to
display an inactive window would allow the user of Maddalozzo to view any
data that may otherwise have been hidden by the window without actually
closing the inactive window. Furthermore, closing the window upon
termination clearly ensures that data is not accessed without proper
authorization” (Ans. 5).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that Maddalozzo and Chaudhri render
claim 8 obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Maddalozzo teaches “[m]eans are provided for tracking for
each of said plurality of windows a variable parameter relative to the
window, in combination with means for displaying along at least a portion of
the borders of each of the windows a color varying with said variable
parameter being tracked for said window” (Maddalozzo, col. 1, l. 66 to col.
2, l. 4).
2. Maddalozzo teaches that “controlling the window stack
hierarchies processed in accordance with the present invention and for
providing the apparatus for tracking variable parameters relative to the
windows, such as time, and for varying the color of window frames
responsive to the variation of the parameter” (Maddalozzo, col. 3, ll. 1-6).
3. Maddalozzo teaches a method which “helps the user track the
decay or timing out of access time to secured system data in said windows.
As set forth above, the problems of tracking time decay or timeouts of
Appeal 2011-004694
Application 11/060,607

5 

secured access to databases is most prevalent with publicly accessible
networks and particularly, the Internet or Web” (Maddalozzo, col. 4, ll. 25-
30).
4. Maddalozzo teaches that:
a routine is set up for each window having secured data to
set the appropriate time decay period, monitor the time
passage for the window, to start with an initial color for the
window frame and to change the color with time as the time
period for each window expires. Finally, step 85, means
must be provided for permitting the user to reaccess or
refresh access to any secured database prior to the expiration
of the time period.

(Maddalozzo, col. 5, ll. 58-65).
5. Maddalozzo teaches that
Now let us consider how the secured data window with the
colored frame tracks the timeout or decay of access time.
After a time increment passes, step 94, a determination is
made, step 95, as to whether the time period for the window
has completely decayed, i.e. expired. If Yes, then step 98,
the data session in the window may be cutoff and the data no
longer available to the user. If No, then decision step 96, a
determination is made as to whether the user has reaccessed
or refreshed his password. If No, the user has not
as yet refreshed, then the color change increment in each of
the timed access window frames is made to correspond with
the actual time increment decay, step 97, and the process is
returned to step 94 where the next time increment is passed
while the process is continued as previously described.
However, if the decision from step 96 is Yes, the user has
reaccessed with his password, the process goes to step 99
where the color in the reaccessed window frame is also
refreshed to its initial color to reflect this reaccess.

(Maddalozzo, col. 6, ll. 25-42).
Appeal 2011-004694
Application 11/060,607

6 

6. Chaudhri teaches that “a window is closed automatically (e.g.,
after a timer expires . . . without user input” (Chaudhri, col. 2, ll. 25-28).
7. Chaudhri teaches that the
In some examples, the image of the window is faded out
before the window is closed and destroyed. In a further
example, the level of translucency, the speed for fading out,
the discrete levels of translucency for fading out, the time to
expire, and/or other parameters for controlling the display of
the window may be set by the user or adjusted by the system
(or application software programs) automatically according
to system conditions or other criteria.

(Chaudhri, col. 2, ll. 30-38).
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417. As noted by the Court in KSR, “[a] person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id.
at 421.
Analysis
Maddalozzo teaches a computer controlled interactive display method
with a plurality of user interactive windows (FF 1-2). Maddalozzo teaches a
sequence of steps:
where “a determination is made as to whether the user has reaccessed”
the window by entering a password (Maddalozzo, col. 6, ll. 32-33; FF 5);
Appeal 2011-004694
Application 11/060,607

7 

presetting an initial time period where “a routine is set up for each
window having secured data to set the appropriate time decay period”
(Maddalozzo, col. 5, ll. 58-60; FF 4);
commencing a time out period to “monitor the time passage for the
window” (Maddalozzo, col. 5, l. 60; FF 4);
displaying an indication of progress “to start with an initial color for
the window frame and to change the color with time as the time period for
each window expires” (Maddalozzo, col. 5, ll. 60-63; FF 4);
and enabling the user to restore the window where when “the user has
reaccessed with his password, the process goes to step 99 where the color in
the reaccessed window frame is also refreshed to its initial color to reflect
this reaccess” (Maddalozzo, col. 6, ll. 39-42; FF 5).
The Examiner acknowledges that Maddalozzo “does not clearly
disclose fading each of the windows toward total transparency” and
Maddalozzo “does not disclose means for each of the plurality of windows
for closing upon termination of its time-out period” (Ans. 4-5).
Chaudhri teaches that “a window is closed automatically (e.g., after a
timer expires . . . without user input” (Chaudhri, col. 2, ll. 25-28; FF 6).
Chaudhri teaches that the “the image of the window is faded out before the
window is closed . . . the level of translucency . . . the discrete levels of
translucency for fading out . . . and/or other parameters for controlling the
display of the window may be set by the user” (Chaudhri, col. 2, ll. 30-35;
FF 7).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
agree with the Examiner that an ordinary artisan would have reasonably
found it obvious to modify the color changing of Maddalozzo with the
Appeal 2011-004694
Application 11/060,607

8 

increasing translucency taught by Chaudhri since “using transparency to
display an inactive window would allow the user of Maddalozzo to view any
data that may otherwise have been hidden by the window without actually
closing the inactive window” (Ans. 5). We further agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to incorporate the window closing of
Chaudhri into Maddalozzo since “closing the window upon termination
clearly ensures that data is not accessed without proper authorization” (Ans.
5). Such combinations are merely the “predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellants contend that “Maddalozzo does not determine whether or
not any window is inactive or active” (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend that
“Maddalozzo does not disclose presetting an initial time period for which
each of said plurality of windows may remain inactive or then determining
whether each of the plurality of windows is active” (App. Br. 11).
We are not persuaded. Maddalozzo teaches that after determining that
the preset time period has not expired (FF 5), that “a determination is made
as to whether the user has reaccessed” the window by entering a password
(Maddalozzo, col. 6, ll. 32-33; FF 5). This determination of whether
reaccess has occurred is reasonably interpreted as determining whether the
window has been actively accessed by the user or not, which satisfies the
requirement of claim 8 to determine if a window is active.
Appellants specifically contend that in Maddalozzo, the “time decay
period is a fixed period occurring at the end of each designated period
irrespective of the extent of activity in the window” (Reply Br. 2).
We are not persuaded. Maddalozzo teaches that if “the user has
reaccessed with his password, the process goes to step 99 where the color in
Appeal 2011-004694
Application 11/060,607

9 

the reaccessed window frame is also refreshed to its initial color to reflect
this reaccess” (Maddalozzo, col. 6, ll. 39-42; FF 5). Thus, activity by the
user controls whether the time decay period refreshes or not, just as required
by claim 8. The activity required in Maddalozzo is reaccess with a
password, but claim 8 incorporates no limitation which excludes
Maddalozzo’s reaccess with a password as a type of activity within a
window. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s
arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.”).
Appellants contend that “Maddalozzo does not disclose fading each
of said windows toward total transparency during the time-out period for
each window” (App. Br. 11).
While we agree that Maddalozzo does not teach fading windows to
translucency as required by claim 8, the Examiner does not rely upon
Maddalozzo for this teaching. Indeed, while Maddalozzo does teach
changing color over time as the time period for window activity expires (FF
4-5), the Examiner relies upon Chaudhri to teach windows fading to
translucency after a set time period (FF 6-7). Thus, Appellants’ argument
fails to address the combination of references.
Appellants contend that “one skilled in the art would be led away
from considering substituting the intrusive window fade-out of Chaudhri for
the unintrusive visual indicators of Maddalozzo because Maddalozzo intends
the windows to be operative in situations where the authorized user is
interacting with an active window during the time-out” (App. Br. 13).
We are not persuaded. A teaching away requires a reference to
actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution.
Appeal 2011-004694
Application 11/060,607

10 

See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s
mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching
away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”).
Appellants do not identify, and we do not find, any teaching in Maddalozzo
which criticizes or discourages the use of increased translucency rather than
color changes to identify windows which are subject to deactivation.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that
Maddalozzo and Chaudhri render claim 8 obvious.

SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Maddalozzo and Chaudhri. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, and
22-25, as these claims were not argued separately.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED
lp