Ex Parte Samuels

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 13, 2019

12274919 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/274,919 11/20/2008 John Samuels
570 7590 06/17/2019
P ANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
TWO COMMERCE SQUARE
2001 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2800
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
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.
688824-218US 1162
EXAMINER
NG,AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2019 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):
usptomail@panitchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN SAMUELS
Appeal2018-008221
Application 12/274,919 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 10, 14--17, 20-22, and 24--36. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, Gula Consulting LLC, is the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 8, 9, 11-13, 18-19, and 23 were cancelled during prosecution.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-008221
Application 12/274,919
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
The disclosed invention relates to sharing a device between multiple
user identities. App. Br. 3. A user who uses more than one network to send
and receive data may utilize more than one identity, such as for work and for
personal use. Spec. ,r,r 3, 18. The disclosed apparatus may receive input for
transitioning from a first virtual screen to a second virtual screen, and
associate the second virtual screen with a second user identity based at least
in part on the input. Id. at ,r 5. The user may, for instance, perform a
swiping input to transition between virtual screens without the need for any
intervening user operations relating to changing the user identity, such as a
login. Id. at ,r 22. The virtual screens may comprise more information than
is displayed, such that the user may pan to view the non-displayed
information. Id. at ,r 19.
Independent claim 1 below is exemplary of the disclosed invention,
and reads as follows, with emphasis added:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor and at least one memory that contains
executable instructions that if executed by the processor cause
the apparatus to:
associate a first virtual screen with a first user identity;
associate a second virtual screen with a second user
identity;
display said first virtual screen while said first user
identity is active;
enable panning a frame beyond a boundary of said first
virtual screen; and transition, in response to the panning of the
frame and without any additional user input, from said first
virtual screen to said second virtual screen;
2
Appeal2018-008221
Application 12/274,919
wherein the transitioning from said first virtual screen to
said second virtual screen deactivates said first user identity
and engages said second user identity.
Independent claims 14, 24, 27, and 30 recite limitations
commensurate with the limitations recited in claim 1. Dependent claims 2-
7, 10, 14--17, 20-22, and 24--36 each incorporates the limitations of their
respective independent claims. Appellant does not argue any claims
separately from claim 1. App. Br. passim. Claims 2-7, 10, 14--17, 20-22,
and 24--36 are rejected under the same grounds as claim 1, and therefore
stand or fall with claim 1. Claims 32-36 are rejected under the same
grounds as claim 31, and therefore stand or fall with claim 31. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Examiner's Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 10, 14--17, 20-22, and 24--30 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Saul
et al. (U.S. 2009/0235177 Al; published Sep. 17, 2009) (hereinafter,
"Saul"), Evans et al. (U.S. 2005/0108239 Al; published May 19, 2005
(hereinafter "Evans"), Schnarel, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 4,720,703; issued Jan.
19, 1988) (hereinafter "Schnarel"), and Kabir et al. (U.S. 2005/0022204 Al;
published Jan. 27, 2005) (hereinafter "Kabir").
The Examiner rejects claims 31-36 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Saul, Evans, Schnarel, Jr., and
further in view of Schroeder et al. (U.S. 2008/0147811 Al; published Jun.
19, 2008) (hereinafter "Schroeder").
3
Appeal2018-008221
Application 12/274,919
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 6-41) in light
of Appellant's contentions that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 8-18).
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellant's
contentions. Ans. 3-8. We have also reviewed the Appellant's Reply Brief.
With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends that the combination of
applied references does not teach or suggest at least the following
limitations:
enable panning a frame beyond a boundary of said first virtual
screen; and transition, in response to the panning of the frame
and without any additional user input, from said first virtual
screen to said second virtual screen; wherein the transitioning
from said first virtual screen to said second virtual screen
deactivates said first user identity and engages said second user
identity.
The Examiner rejects claim 1 over the combination of Saul, Evans,
Schnarel, Jr., and Kabir. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner relies on the
teaching or suggestion of Saul for a processor that displays two virtual
screens that may be selected by the user moving a pointer. Final Act. 7-8.
The Examiner further relies upon the teaching or suggestion of Evans where
a user may transition between virtual screens and switch from a virtual
identity associated with the first screen to a virtual identity associated with a
second screen by supplying the name of the desired new identity. Id. at 8.
The Examiner further relies upon the teachings or suggestions of Schnarel
for the limitation of panning a frame beyond a boundary of a first virtual
screen to a second virtual screen. Id. at 9. The Examiner further relies upon
the teaching or suggestion of Kabir to transition without any additional input
from the first virtual screen to the second virtual screen, wherein an Internet
4
Appeal2018-008221
Application 12/274,919
browser appears to have been restarted with a new session having data
managed in a manner specific to particular users. Id. at 10.
Appellant argues that Schnarel merely enables panning the viewport
of the frame to the boundaries of the first virtual screen, but that this does
not result in changing to a different virtual screen based on the panning.
App. Br. 13-14. Appellant further argues that none of the other applied
references teach or suggest any panning, let alone panning that, by itself,
changes the active screen from a first virtual screen to a second virtual
screen. Id. Appellant points to the Examiner's statement that the
combination of Saul and Evans fails to teach or suggest enabling panning a
frame beyond a boundary of said first virtual screen. Id. at 13, quoting Final
Act. 9. Appellant further argues that Kabir is silent on panning. Id. at 15-
16.
Appellant further argues that the combination of applied references
fails to teach that such panning results in a transition, "without any
additional user input, from first virtual screen to said second virtual screen,
wherein the transforming from said first virtual screen to said second virtual
screen deactivates first user identity and engages said second user identity."
Id. at 12. Appellant argues that that Saul and Evans do not teach such
transitioning occurring without any additional user input, because Saul does
not teach any transitioning, and Evans teaches transitioning only upon user
input of the name of the desired second user identity. Id. at 12-13.
Appellant further argues that Schnarel is silent on user identities, and that
Kabir requires a user request to switch identities. Id. at 14--15. According to
Appellant, the Examiner errs in characterizing Kabir' s teaching of "utilizing
the described implementations for[] switching Internet contexts ... without
5
Appeal2018-008221
Application 12/274,919
a current user having first to log off and a second user log on" (Final Act.
10) as performing switching without any user input at all. Final Act. 15-16.
We find Appellant's argument to be persuasive. The Examiner has
not explained how the combination of references teach panning a viewport
in a virtual screen so as to change to a different virtual screen and also
change to a different user identity without any additional input. According
to the Examiner, Schnarel teaches panning a viewport beyond a boundary of
a first virtual screen. Ans. 5. However, the Examiner has not identified how
that panning would result in a transition to a second virtual screen through
the teachings or suggestions of Schnarel. Nor does the Examiner point to
any teachings or suggestions of the other applied references for that
limitation. According to the Examiner, Saul teaches selecting a different
virtual screen through the user action of moving a pointer and selecting a
display for activation (Final Act. 7), and Evans and Kabir manage the
identity of a user so as to switch user identities on the displayed screens
without mention of panning. Final Act. 1011; Ans. 6-7.
Moreover, the claim specifies that the transitioning that deactivates
the first user identity and engages the second user identity is caused by the
panning. Although the Examiner relies upon Evans and Kabir to teach
managing user identities to switch user identities on displayed screens, the
Examiner has not explained how the references teach or suggest such
switching to occur solely due to panning. Ans. 5---6. We agree with
Appellant that Evans and Kabir require some user action to switch user
identities, and do not indicate that such user action may be panning from one
virtual screen to another. App. Br. 15-16.
6
Appeal2018-008221
Application 12/274,919
At best, the Examiner discusses how the references teach panning to
transition within the first frame, and how the references teach a user action
or a computer action causing transitioning from a first screen and
deactivating a first user identity and engaging a second user identity. Ans.
5-7. The Examiner has not specifically accounted for the limitation that the
panning causes a transition to a second virtual screen and, by only the action
of such panning, deactivates first user identity and engages second user
identity. Effectively, the Examiner provides a conclusory generalization that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have assembled the disparate panning,
virtual screen switching, and user identity switching teachings of the
references into a panning resulting in both screen and user identity switching
in the claimed manner. Such a conclusory generalization is not a "reasoned
explanation" that would support a conclusion of obviousness. See Perfect
Web Techs, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We
agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown how any combination
of teachings or suggestions of the applied references results in selecting a
different virtual screen by panning within a first virtual screen so as to result,
without additional user input, in a deactivation of the identity used in the
first virtual screen and activation of the identity used in the second virtual
screen. App. Br. 16-17.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1. Since the Examiner relies upon the identical
teachings or suggestions for claims 1-7, 10, 14--17, and 20-22, and 24-30as
for claim 1, Appellant's arguments are also persuasive as to error in those
obviousness rejections. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
7
Appeal2018-008221
Application 12/274,919
With respect to claim 31, the Examiner applies the teachings or
suggestions of Saul, Evans, and Schnarel, as applied to claim 1, further in
view of Schroeder. The Examiner applies Saul, Evans, and Schnarel for the
same teachings or suggestions as applied to claim 1. Final Act. 37. The
Examiner further applies Schroeder for organizing a plurality of user
identities and process messages on a mobile communication device. Id.
Appellant argues that as for claim 1, the Examiner has not shown the
combination of Saul, Evans, and Schnarel to teach or suggest selecting a
different virtual screen by panning within a first virtual screen so as to result,
without additional user input, in a disengaging of the identity used in the
first virtual screen and engaging of the identity used in the second virtual
screen. App. Br.18. The Examiner does not find, nor do we determine, that
Schroeder supplies the teachings or suggestions missing in the combination
of Saul, Evans, and Schnarel.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 31. Since the Examiner relies upon the identical
teachings or suggestions for claims 32-36 as for claim 31, Appellant's
arguments are also persuasive as to error in those obviousness rejections. In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
CONCLUSION
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner has erred in
rejecting independent claims 1-7, 10, 14--17, 20-22, and 24--36 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103. In view of the foregoing, we reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 1-7, 10, 14--17, 20-22, and 24--36.
8
Appeal2018-008221
Application 12/274,919
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 10, 14--17, 20-
22, and 24--36 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
9