Ex Parte Wu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

14044947 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/044,947 10/03/2013
60601 7590 03/23/2018
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tsung-En Wu
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.
5901/0126PUS 1 4694
EXAMINER
KUMAR, ANIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2018 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 TSUNG-EN WU 1
Appeal2017-008525
Application 14/044,9472
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12-17, and 19. Claims 2,
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Insyde Software Corp.
App. Br. 3.
2 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of Oct. 3, 2013, and
has no parent applications. Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act (AIA) amendments to the U.S. Code(§§ 102, 103) are applicable. See
MPEP § 2159.02 (the amended sections "apply to any patent application that
contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed invention that has an
effective filing date that is on or after March 16, 2013.").
Appeal2017-008525
Application 14/044,947
5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 18 have been canceled. Final Act. 1-2; App. Br. 5. 3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appellant's Invention
The invention at issue on appeal generally concerns graphical user
interfaces (GUis) displayed on mobile devices and methods for displaying
GUis and starting (executing) applications utilizing GUis. The method
provides (displays), on a mobile device display, a status bar as a part of a
system screen of the mobile device operating system (OS). The status bar
includes multiple command icons including a home button and a starting
button. The method receives a first input signal generated by activating
(interacting with) the starting button and, based on the received signal,
generates a windowed application menu within the system screen, where the
windowed application menu includes at least one icon that corresponds to a
single application selected from multiple applications installed on the mobile
OS. In a configuration mode, the method receives a second input signal
generated by selecting one of the icons in the windowed application menu
and executes only the single application corresponding to the selected icon.
(Spec. 1:6-9; 3:6-5:9; Abstract.)
3 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed Oct. 3, 2013; Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") filed Jan. 23, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
May 22, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final
Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Aug. 23, 2016 and Answer ("Ans.") mailed
Mar. 23, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-008525
Application 14/044,947
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method of promptly starting windowed
applications installed on a mobile operating system (OS), the
method performed by the mobile OS in a mobile device having
a display that defines a system screen and comprising steps of:
providing a status bar as a part of the system screen of the
mobile OS, wherein the status bar has multiple command icons
including a home button and a starting button;
receiving a first input signal generated by clicking the
starting button;
if the input signal is received, generating a windowed
application menu within the system screen, the windowed
application menu including at least one icon each of which
corresponds to a single application selected from multiple
applications installed on the mobile OS and for a configuration
mode;
receiving a second input signal generated by selecting one
of the at least one icon in the windowed application menu;
executing only the single application corresponding to the
selected one of the at least one icon in the windowed application
menu when receiving the second input signal; and
simultaneously displaying the status bar and the executed
single application under a windowed mode, wherein
the step of generating a windowed application menu
further has steps of:
generating an application list corresponding to the
multiple applications installed on the mobile OS in the
configuration mode for selection for adding to the windowed
application menu;
selecting at least one of the applications from the
application list; and
3
Appeal2017-008525
Application 14/044,947
adding the at least one application selected to the
windowed application menu.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12-1 7, and 19 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2013/0120447 Al,
published May 16, 2013) ("Kim") and Seo et al. (US 2013/0321340 Al,
published Dec. 5, 2013 (filed Aug. 9, 2013)) ("Seo").
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant's contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kim and Seo
would have collectively taught or suggested "generating a windowed
application menu within the system screen, ... including at least one icon
each of which corresponds to a single application selected from multiple
applications installed on the mobile OS" and "receiving a second input
signal generated by selecting ... [an] icon in the windowed application
menu [and] executing only the single application corresponding to the
selected ... icon" within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the
commensurate limitations of claims 6, 12, and 19?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claims 6,
12, and 19) as being obvious in view of Kim and Seo. See Final Act. 3-7;
Ans. 12-17. Appellant contends that Kim and Seo do not teach the disputed
features of claim 1. See App. Br. 12-19; Reply Br. 2---6. Specifically,
4
Appeal2017-008525
Application 14/044,947
Appellant contends, inter alia, that, with respect to Seo (cited by the
Examiner as teaching selecting an icon in the windowed application menu
and executing only a single application corresponding to the selected icon
(see Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 12-13 (citing Seo i-fi-f 103, 142, 143; Figs. 7B and
7C))), Seo does not teach or suggest selecting an icon in a windowed
application menu that executes a single application. See App. Br. 13-14.
Appellant also contends Kim does not teach executing only a single
application corresponding to a selected icon in the windowed application
menu. See App. Br. 12-19; Reply Br. 2-6.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not sufficiently
explain how Kim in combination with Seo teach or suggest executing a
single application corresponding to a selected icon in the windowed
application menu. The Examiner cited portions of Kim (see Final Act. 4---6;
Ans. 12-17 (citing Kim i-fi-173, 79, 93, 122; Figs. 2, 5A, 1 lA-1 lC) describe
either executing an application corresponding to an icon (see Ans. 14--15
(citing Kim i1 73; Fig. 2)) or executing multiple applications simultaneously
from an icon in a multi-application panel (see Final Act. 4--6; Ans. 12, 14--
17 (citing Kim i-fi-179, 93, 122; Figs. 5A, 1 lA-1 lC). The Examiner cited
portions of Seo (see Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 12-14 (citing Seo i-fi-f 103, 142,
143; Figs. 7B and 7C))) describe a menu including icons that activate a pop-
up window menu including soft keys/icons, which in tum activate additional
pop-up window menus. The cited portions of Seo do not clearly describe
executing a single application by clicking an icon. Rather, Seo describes
activating menus utilizing an icon.
Even if executing a single application corresponding to an icon was
known at the time of Appellant's application (as the Examiner suggests-
5
Appeal2017-008525
Application 14/044,947
see Final Act 7; Ans. 12-15), Appellant's claim requires generating a
windowed application menu (a second window or sub-menu) including one
or more icons and selecting one of the icons to execute only a single
corresponding application. The Examiner simply points to portions of Kim
and Seo and concludes that it would be obvious to modify and/or combine
the cited portions to achieve the recited process/method. However, as
explained by Appellant (supra), the cited portions of Kim and Seo do not
describe or suggest generating a windowed application menu and executing
a single application corresponding to an icon in the windowed application
menu. We, therefore, agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
adequately explained how the combined teachings of Kim and Seo meet the
disputed limitations of claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Kim and Seo
renders obvious Appellant's claim 1. Independent claims 6, 12, and 19
include limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 3, 4, 9, and
13-17 depend from claims 1, 6, and 12, respectively. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12-
17, and 19.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6,
9, 12-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Appeal2017-008525
Application 14/044,947
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12-17,
and 19.
REVERSED
7