Ex Parte Sirpal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13364475 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
13/364,475 02/02/2012 Sanjiv Sirpal 6583-173 5272
111285 7590
Sheridan Ross P.C.
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
12/30/2016 EXAMINER
LU, HUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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 2016-001294
Application 13/364,475
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a dual multi-display handheld computing
device. Specification, paragraph 5.
Appeal 2016-001294
Application 13/364,475
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method, comprising:
providing a device having at least first and second
displays, wherein both the first and second displays are
viewable by a user;
in a first display mode, presenting a first user interface
for a phone application on a first display, wherein the first
display mode includes displaying content in a portrait
orientation and displaying content on at least the first display;
receiving input from a user, wherein the input includes a
change in the display for the phone application, wherein the
input is received in touch sensitive portion of a second display;
determining a second display mode, wherein the second
display mode includes displaying content in a portrait
orientation and displaying content on at least the first and
second display;
in response to the input and the determination that the
device is in a second display mode, presenting the first user
interface on a first display;
in response to the determination that the device is in a
second display mode, presenting a second user interface on a
second display, wherein the second user interface is also
associated with the phone application, and wherein the second
user interface is a child window of the first user interface.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kilpatrick (US Patent Application Publication Number
2010/0085274 Al; published April 8, 2010) and Chiang (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2010/0081475 Al; published April 1,
2010). Final Rej ection 5—2 6.
2
Appeal 2016-001294
Application 13/364,475
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 22, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
November 9, 2015), the Answer (mailed September 8, 2015) and the Final
Rejection (mailed January 22, 2015) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
Appellants argue that Kilpatrick fails to disclose opening a child
window of an application displayed in a first display based upon a user input
into the second display. Appeal Brief 8. The Examiner finds Kilpatrick
discloses in Figure 8, paragraph 106, “wherein the input is received in a
touch sensitive portion of a second screen” as recited in claim 1. Final
Rejection 6.
Kilpatrick discloses:
The processor 810 may be responsive to the wireless controller
840 to display call indicia, such as a caller identification or a
caller number, at one or more of the displays 802, 804, and 806
when the device 800 receives an incoming call. The processor
810 may determine a size, position, and orientation, as well as a
particular display 802, 804, and 806, to display the call indicia at
least partially based on the folding configuration of the device
800 that is determined based on input from the sensors 874 and
876. For example the call indicia may be displayed as a pop-up
window or text over one or more other applications having a size,
location, and orientation based on the folding configuration.
Kilpatrick, paragraph 106.
Appellants contend:
Kilpatrick, in paragraph [0106], describes the process of opening
up a call indicia window. First, opening a call indicia window is
responsive to receiving an incoming call and not to a user input
3
Appeal 2016-001294
Application 13/364,475
in a second display. Second, the pop-up window is opened based
on the folding configuration. There is no mention of opening the
pop-up window in the second display due to user input in the
second display. Third, the pop-up window is opened over another
application window and not in a second display. Simply stated,
this section of Kilpatrick does not teach the claim element but a
different user interface event.
Appeal Brief 9.
The Examiner relies upon Chiang to disclose the “wherein the second
user interface is a child window of the first user interface” limitation recited
in claim 1. Final Rejection 8. The Examiner finds Chiang discloses in
Figure 10A and paragraph 55 “wherein an e-mail application using the dual
window interface to view a listing 1002 of e-mails in a selected folder (the
first user interface) and a preview 1004 of a selected e-mail (the second user
interface).” Final Rejection 8.
Appellants argue Chiang fails to address Kilpatrick’s deficiency
because “Chiang is cited as describing two windows associated with a same
application.” Appeal Brief 11; see Final Rejection 8. Appellants contend:
This statement may be true, but Chiang does not open a child
window by responding to a user input in a second display. To
open a child window, Chiang describes a process of splitting a
single display into two parts. See Chiang, [0044]-[0049]; Figs.
6A and 6B. Chiang never mentions opening a child window, of
an application displayed in a first display, in a second display, by
receiving user input in the second display.
Appeal Brief 11.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Kilpatrick fails to
disclose opening a child window of an application displayed in a first
display based upon a user input into the second display as required by claim
1. Chiang fails to address Kilpatrick’s deficiency. We reverse the Examiner
4
Appeal 2016-001294
Application 13/364,475
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 16, commensurate in
scope, as well as, dependent claims 2—10, 12—15, and 17—20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5