Ex Parte Sirpal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613364470 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/364,470 02/02/2012 Sanjiv Sirpal 6583-186 6050 111285 7590 Sheridan Ross P.C. 1560 Broadway Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 12/29/2016 EXAMINER LU, HUA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): edocket @ sheridanross .com flexpatents-sr@ sheridanross.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SANJIV SIRPAL and MARTIN GIMPL Appeal 2016-000465 Application 13/364,470 Technology Center 2100 Before HUNG H. BUI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Z124. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-000465 Application 13/364,470 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants ’ Invention Appellants’ invention generally relates to “a dual multi-display handheld computing device that provides for enhanced power and/or versatility compared to conventional single display handheld computing devices.” Spec. 1 5. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: providing a device having at least first and second displays; in a dual-display application configuration, presenting two windows for a phone application, wherein the first display configuration includes displaying a second window on the first display and a first window on the second display, wherein the first window and the second window are both associated with the phone application, and wherein the second window is a child window of the first window; receiving input from a user, wherein the input includes a change in an application configuration for the phone application; determining a transition to a single-display application configuration, wherein the single-display application configuration includes displaying content for the phone application on only the first display; in response to the input and the determination of the single-display application configuration, moving the first window to the first display; in response to the input and the determination of the single-display application configuration: stopping presentation of the child window; presenting the first window on the first display; and presenting a desktop on the second display. 2 Appeal 2016-000465 Application 13/364,470 Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1—10 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 4—5. (2) Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kilpatrick et al. (US 2010/0085274 Al; published, Apr. 8, 2010) (“Kilpatrick”) and Chiang et al. (US 2010/0081475 Al; published, Apr. 1, 2010) (“Chiang”). Final Act. 6-28. ANALYSIS 112 Rejection Appellants present no arguments pertaining to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite (Final Act. 4—5). We see nothing in the record that indicates that this rejection is withdrawn. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. §103 Rejection Appellants contend the combination of Kilpatrick and Chiang fails to teach or suggest “in response to the input and the determination that the device is in single-display application configuration: stopping presentation of the child window; presenting the first window on the first display; and presenting a desktop on the second display,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 8—12. According to Appellants, “Kilpatrick describes closing an application by dragging a window across a gap between two screens.” Br. 9 (citing Kilpatrick, Figs. 35—37). Appellants contend: 3 Appeal 2016-000465 Application 13/364,470 The present claim does not close the application . . . Rather, the claims specifies that the device displays two windows in a first configuration. An input causes the device to close a second, child window and moves a first window from a second screen to a first screen. Both the first and second windows are associated with the same application. The input essentially closes or discontinues the display of a child window. Kilpatrick makes no mention of closing or stopping the presentation of a child window while continuing to present a first window associated with the application. Kilpatrick actually closes the application so no window is shown for the application. Br. 9-10 (citing Spec., Fig. 52C) (internal citation omitted). Appellants acknowledge that Chiang teaches displaying two windows associated with a same application (Br. 10 (citing Chiang, Figs. 10A—B)), but contend: Figs. 10A and 10B of Chiang show and describe the transition of a single application from a dual display mode to a single screen mode. After a single window is transitioned to the single screen mode, the application window spans the entire screen, as shown in Fig. 10B . . . . Therefore, the single application window in Chiang does not move to another display but expands across both displays, and the device no longer shows a split display or two displays. Br. 11 (citing Chiang, Figs. 10A—B). We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner finds the combination of Kilpatrick and Chiang teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. See Final Act. 6—10; Ans. 4—10. In particular, the Examiner finds Kilpatrick teaches that each panel of a multi panel device is configured with a display surface for displaying a window of an application. Final Act. 6—7 (citing Kilpatrick, Figs. 32—37; Tflf 5, 92, 106, 4 Appeal 2016-000465 Application 13/364,470 150, 154, 156); see also Ans. 5—6 (citing Kilpatrick, Figs. 36, 37; 1155). The Examiner finds Chiang describes a mobile device having a user interface supporting multiple windows with a single window mode and dual window mode. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds Chiang teaches presenting a phone window and a contacts window of a phone application in the dual window mode. Final Act. 8—9 (citing Chiang, Figs. 2B-C, 10A; | 55); Ans. 6. The Examiner finds Chiang teaches that, in response to receiving a close command, the system closes one of the windows. Final Act. 9—10 (citing Chiang, Figs. 2A, 8; Tflf 47, 49-51); Ans. 9 (citing Chiang | 51). The Examiner further finds Chiang teaches that the system could be configured to remain in dual window mode even after the window is closed (Final Act. 9 (citing Chiang 151); Ans. 9) and that the system could be configured to place the open window in a set position (Ans. 10 (citing Chiang 145)). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes the combination of Kilpatrick and Chiang teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Final Act. 10; Ans. 10. Appellants’ contentions fail to address the combined teachings of the references and, therefore, are unpersuasive of error. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Regarding claims 2—20, Appellants rely on the arguments presented for claim 1. See Br. 12—13. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2—20 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph. 5 Appeal 2016-000465 Application 13/364,470 We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation