Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2021

2020003017 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2021)

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. 15/544,911 07/20/2017 Shaheen Saroor 84646714 5407 22879 7590 12/30/2021 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544 EXAMINER WU, SING-WAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2611 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2021 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): ipa.mail@hp.com jessica.pazdan@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SHAHEEN SAROOR, NAM NGUYEN, and KENT E. BIGGS ___________________ Appeal 2020-003017 Application 15/544,911 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-15, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed October 31, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed March 13, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed January 17, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Rejection mailed July 12, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed July 20, 2017 (“Spec.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies HEWLETT-PACKARD Appeal 2020-003017 Application 15/544,911 2 We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION The claims relate to a system and method for managing a display unit. See Abstract. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A system, comprising: a processing resource; a memory resource storing machine-readable instructions executable by the processing resource to: determine a selected display mode of a display device; control a physical connection between an external computing device connected to the display device and an internal computing device connected to the display device; and adjust a display setting of the display device, based on the display mode, to display: on a first segment of the display device, a rendering of a video display of the internal device generated by the internal computing device, and on a second segment of the display device, a rendering of a video display of the external device generated by the external computing device; and transfer content of the external computing device to the internal computing device responsive to an input to the display device relocating a rendering of the content on the display device from the second segment to the first segment. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003017 Application 15/544,911 3 Name3 Reference Date Ogura US 2004/0095292 A1 May 20, 2004 Hachiya US 2013/0249922 A1 Sept. 26, 2013 Lu US 8,594,467 B2 Nov. 26, 2013 Tseng US 2014/0139431 A1 May 22, 2014 FileZilla-Using, “Using - FileZilla Wiki,” https://wiki.filezilla- project.org/Using, January 8, 2013 (“FileZilla”). NirodhaSoftware, “How to transfer files across home network using FileZilla,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C35OYhnddc, Dec. 1, 2014. REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hachiya, Lu, and NirodhaSoftware. Final Act. 3-15. 2. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hachiya, Lu, NirodhaSoftware, and Ogura. Final Act. 15-17. 3. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hachiya, Lu, NirodhaSoftware, and FileZilla. Final Act. 17-22. 4. Claims 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hachiya, Lu, NirodhaSoftware, FileZilla, and Ogura. Final Act. 22-25. 5. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hachiya, Lu, NirodhaSoftware, FileZilla, Ogura, and Tseng. Final Act. 26-31. 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-003017 Application 15/544,911 4 ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. CLAIMS 1-4: OBVIOUS OVER HACHIYA, LU, AND NIRODHASOFTWARE. Appellant argues these claims as a group and designates Claim 1 as representative. Appeal Br. 10 (“Claims 2-4 depend from claim l and, for at least this reason, the rejection of claims 2-4 should not be sustained for at least the reasons given above regarding independent claim l.”). Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 103 rejections on the basis of representative Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appeal 2020-003017 Application 15/544,911 5 Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, transfer content of the external computing device to the internal computing device responsive to an input to the display device relocating a rendering of the content on the display device from the second segment to the first segment. Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner refers to this recitation as Limitation “1_5.” See Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner finds the combination of Hachiya and Lu fails to teach Limitation 1_5. To teach Limitation 1_5, the Examiner finds NirodhaSoftware teaches a demonstration of the use of FileZilla software. Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds FileZilla (as explicated by NirodhaSoftware) teaches a display window of a local computer may be provided two panes wherein a first pane displays information of the local computer’s directory and a second pane displays information of a remote computer’s directory. Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner further finds NirodhaSoftware teaches that a user may operate the two FileZilla screens so as to cause content (files) of the remote computer to be transferred to the local computer. Final Act. 12. Appellant contends Hachiya describes a single computing system displaying a first virtual desktop on an integrated physical display, and a second virtual desktop on an external physical display. Appeal Br. 7 (citing Hachiya, ¶ 27; Fig. 2). Appellant argues Lu teaches that “multiple ‘virtual displays,’ corresponding to different heterogeneous computing devices, can be provided concurrently (in separate windows) on a single display surface such that the user can interact with (or switch between) any heterogeneous computing device she chooses.” Appeal Br. 8 (quoting Lu, col 4, ll. 57-61). Appeal 2020-003017 Application 15/544,911 6 Appellant argues the Hachiya-Lu combination fails to teach the transferring of content limitation. Id. Appellant argues NirodhaSoftware teaches a client computer pulling a file from a server which the client computer then downloads and displays. Id. Appellant argues the window manipulations, such as “dragging,” taught by Lu, act merely to re-size, or re- position, window elements, but do not suggest relocating content. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner finds NirodhaSoftware teaches a second-segment file, originally located at C:\Users\Koi\Desktop\question2answer\ is relocated to a first segment at C:\Users\Koi\Desktop\. Ans. 9. Appellant contends NirodhaSoftware fails to show any kind of file relocation because the icon of the file to be relocated from the remote site does not appear in the listing of the local directory. Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. NirodhaSoftware explicitly relates to “How to transfer files across home network using FileZilla.” NirodhaSoftware, Title. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 1-4. CLAIM 5: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HACHIYA, LU, NIRODHASOFTWARE, AND OGURA. Appellant contends Claim 5 is patentable in view of its dependence from Claim 1. Appeal Br. 10-11. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of Claim 5. Appeal 2020-003017 Application 15/544,911 7 CLAIMS 6 AND 7: OBVIOUSNESS OVER HACHIYA, LU, NIRODHASOFTWARE, AND FILEZILLA. Claim 6 recites, inter alia: identify a plurality of external computing devices physically connected to an internal computing device, . . . transfer content among the internal computing device and the plurality of external computing devices responsive to a click-and-drag operation at the display device relocating a rendering of the content to a different segment on the display device. Appellant contends each of Hachiya, Lu, and NirodhaSoftware describe a single local device connected to single external device, not a plurality of external devices, and that FileZilla fails to cure that deficiency. Appeal Br. 11-12. The Examiner finds Lu teaches: the Interactive Virtual Display uses various combinations of small-size programmable hardware (referred to herein as a “display interface module”) and wearable sensors (or other input devices) to enable any display surface to act as a thin client that allows users to interact with a variety of local and remote heterogeneous computing devices. This functionality is enabled by various techniques that provide a flexible system architecture that enables communication and collaboration between a plurality of both local and remote devices. Ans. 13 (quoting Lu, col. 8, ll. 53-56) (emphasis omitted). Appellant parses the operation of each reference separately, but fails to engage the synthesis thereof. See Reply Br. 7-10. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.Cir.1986) (Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the Appeal 2020-003017 Application 15/544,911 8 references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 6 and 7. CLAIMS 9-13: OBVIOUS OVER HACHIYA, LU, NIRODHASOFTWARE, FILEZILLA, AND OGURA. “Appellants continue to rely on arguments made above with respect to the similar language of claim 6.” Appeal Br. 13. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 9-13. CLAIMS 14 AND 15: OBVIOUS OVER HACHIYA, LU, NIRODHASOFTWARE, FILEZILLA, OGURA, AND TSENG. Appellants contend Claims 14 and 15 are patentably in view of their dependence from Claim 10. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 14 and 15. Appeal 2020-003017 Application 15/544,911 9 DECISION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4 103 Hachiya, Lu, NirodhaSoftware 1-4 5 103 Hachiya, Lu, NirodhaSoftware, Ogura 5 6, 7 103 Hachiya, Lu, NirodhaSoftware, FileZilla 6, 7 9-13 103 Hachiya, Lu, NirodhaSoftware, FileZilla, Ogura 9-13 14, 15 103 Hachiya, Lu, NirodhaSoftware, FileZilla, Ogura, Tseng 14, 15 Overall Outcome 1-7, 9-15 AFFIRMED