Ex Parte Segre

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 25, 2008

09779306 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MARC SEGRE
____________

Appeal 2007-3427
Application 09/779,306
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: March 25, 2008
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and KARL D.
EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 13-15, and 18.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF CASE

1 Claims 4, 5, 8, 10-12, 16, and 17 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2007-3427
Application 09/779,306

Appellant’s claimed invention is an automatic switching device that
enables a single set of input devices to be employed by a user when
interacting with multiple data processing systems without requiring the user
to manually switch the input device signals between the data processing
systems (Spec. 1:7-15; Br. 2).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.

1. A set of data processing systems operating utilizing a single set of
input devices, comprising:

a single set of input devices including a pointing device;

at least two data processing systems sharing the single set of input
devices, each data processing system having a logical display area logically
arranged to have at least one boundary in common with a logical display
area for another data processing system, wherein a pointer driven cursor
controlled by the pointing device is located within a logical display area for
an active data processing system receiving input signals from the single set
of input devices; and

switching means including an input controller coupled to said single
set of input device and to each of said at least two data processing systems,
wherein said switching means, responsive to the active data processing
system signaling movement of the cursor past a logical common boundary
between two logical display areas, for automatically switching transmission
of signals from the single set of input devices from the active data
processing system to another data processing system corresponding to a
logical display area sharing the logical common boundary with the logical
display area for the active data processing system, wherein the other data
processing system becomes the active data processing system.

2
Appeal 2007-3427
Application 09/779,306

REFERENCES
Grigor US 6,473,101 B1 Oct. 29, 2002
(Filed Feb. 1, 1999)
Ku US 6,266,236 B1 July 24, 2001
(Filed June 16, 1999)

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 13-15 under U.S.C. §
103(a) based upon the teachings of Grigor. The Examiner also rejected
claims 3, 9, and 18 under U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of
Grigor and Ku. Appellant notes that the claims stand or fall together as a
single group for purposes of this appeal (Br. 4), claim 1 being an exemplary
claim (Br. 5).
Appellant contends that Grigor does not teach or suggest the
switching means recited in the claims (Br. 6).

ISSUES
Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 13-15
as obvious to one of skill in the art under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Grigor and
claims 3, 9, and 18 over Grigor and Ku.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s invention teaches a set of data processing systems
(104a-104n) and a method for operating them using a single input device
(106) and an automatic switch (108) enabling the input device to be
employed by a user when interacting with the multiple data processing
systems (Spec. 1:11-15; Fig. 1).
3
Appeal 2007-3427
Application 09/779,306

2. The switching means automatically switches the transmission
of signals from a single set of input devices from an active data processing
system to another data processing system so that the other data processing
system becomes the active data processing system (Spec. 10:8-13, Cl. 1).
3. The switching means includes an input controller such that the
input controller and switch automatically select an “active” data processing
system (Spec. 6:20-24; Cl. 1).
4. The switching means further includes a universal serial bus
connection of the input device to each data processing system (Spec. 6:25-
28; Spec. 10:19-24; Cl. 3).
5. Grigor teaches systems and methods that facilitate view
panning for multiple display devices (col. 1, ll. 7-10). The multi-view
panning system and method link a plurality of desktops into one larger
desktop that may be navigated through the use of a position indicator over
multiple display devices (col. 2, ll. 31-34). “This facilitates generation of a
large virtual desktop over multiple displays from a single processing unit”
(col. 2, ll. 53-55).
6. Grigor’s multi-view panning apparatus (10) includes a
processor (12) and a memory (14) (Fig. 1a; col. 2, ll. 59-65).
7. Figs. 2a and 2b of Grigor show that the processing unit defines
the surface for a plurality of displays as a common block of memory that
bounds all views of interest. The block of memory contains display data for
displaying on the multiple displays (col. 4, ll. 26-31).
8. Ku teaches a keyboard and mouse that can be connected using a
universal bus connection (USB) (col. 8, ll. 16-21; Fig. 1).

4
Appeal 2007-3427
Application 09/779,306

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Grigor teaches every claimed feature except for the input
controller of the switching means. The Examiner states that Grigor does not
explicitly teach the input controller, but that the multi-panning system along
with the position indicator (60) and the control logic (62) function the same
as Appellant’s input controller (Ans. 5). Grigor teaches that the control
logic (62) outputs control data (70) to a memory controller (72) based on a
comparison of the position indicator within a given rectangular view and pan
locking rectangle (col. 4, ll. 20-23). The requisite display data is then
obtained by the controller (72) from the memory (14) and output to the
appropriate display device (col. 4, ll. 23-25; FF 5, 6).
Appellant counters that the input controller/switch (108) of the
invention automatically selects an “active” data processing system (Spec.
5
Appeal 2007-3427
Application 09/779,306

6:20-24, Cl. 1, FF 2). In contrast, the control logic of Grigor determines
which of multiple display devices should be updated and then outputs
control data indicating which display data to obtain from memory (FF 7).
The display data output to the display devices does not constitute input
device signals that switch between data processing systems (Br. 6). Thus,
the control logic and memory controller of Grigor do not and cannot perform
the switching of input device signals between an active data processing
system and another data processing system as claimed by Appellant (Br. 6).
We agree that Grigor does not teach or suggest Appellant’s claimed
“switching means” and/or “input controller.”
Further, the Examiner states that Grigor teaches at least two
processing systems in Fig. 1a; items 16 and 20, and items 18 and 22 (col. 2,
l. 66 – col. 3, l. 2) (Ans. 4). However, items 16 and 20 and items 18 and 22
are first and second rectangular view generators and first and second pan
locking rectangular providers, respectively. Rather, Fig. 1a shows a single
processor 12 and column 1, lines 9-65, states that Fig. 1a shows a multi-view
panning apparatus 10 having a processor 12 and memory 14. The memory
contains data to be displayed in at least first and second rectangular views on
at least first and second display devices. Thus, whereas Grigor teaches
facilitating multiple view panning in a common surface over multiple
displays (col. 4, ll. 54-55; FF 5), Appellant’s invention employs an input
controller/switch that automatically switches input device signals between
data processing systems in response to movement of a cursor past a common
boundary of logical display areas associated with the data processing
systems (Br. 4).
6
Appeal 2007-3427
Application 09/779,306

Since we have determined, in view of the above discussion, that the
Examiner has not established a factual basis to support a legal conclusion of
obviousness as required by In re Fine, supra, claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 13-15 are
not obvious over Grigor.
With respect to claims 3, 9, and 18, we have reviewed Ku which the
Examiner applied to address the claimed feature of a universal serial bus
(USB) connection of the single set of input devices to each data processing
system. We find nothing in Ku’s disclosure to overcome the above
mentioned deficiencies of Grigor. In view of the above discussion, we are of
the opinion that even if Grigor and Ku could be combined, they would not
support a conclusion of obviousness.

CONCLUSION
We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3,
6, 7, 9, 13-15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 13-15, and
18 is reversed.

REVERSED

7
Appeal 2007-3427
Application 09/779,306

gvw

IBM CORPORATION
P. O. Box 12195
DEPT YXSA, BLDG 002
RESEARCH TRIANGE PARK, NC 27709
8