Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2021

2020000339 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 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.
14/262,542 04/25/2014 Robert W. Schmieder 186587-US-CNT 8035
144365 7590 04/29/2021
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LE V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2021 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT W. SCHMIEDER, IDO M. BEN-SHACHAR,
IVAN J. LEICHTLING, and DEANA RAE FULLER
____________________

Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 34, 36, 39, and 41–
52. Claims 1–20, 23–26, 28, 31–33, 35, 37, 38, and 40 are cancelled. Final
Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the “real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 21 is illustrative (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material
added):
21. A method, performed by a computing system, for
displaying a representation of a shared window on a
viewing display, the method comprising:
[A.] receiving, at the computing system, window data
comprising at least data about the shared window,
[i.] wherein the shared window is a window of an
application,
[ii.] the shared window having both
[a.] a content area and
[b.] an application artifact area;
[B.] rendering, by the computing system for displaying on
the viewing display, data representing the content area
of the shared window while omitting the application
artifact area of the shared window;
[C.] receiving new window data comprising data about a
new shared window;
[D.] determining, by the computing system, whether the
new window data includes data about the new shared
window that overlaps both the application artifact
area and the content area of the shared window;
[E.] in response to determining the new window data
includes the data about the new shared window that
overlaps both the application artifact area and the
content area, providing, by the computing system for
displaying on the viewing display, data representing
the new shared window, the application artifact area,
and the content area.

Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

3
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Ludwig US 5,617,539 Apr. 1, 1997
Ansberry US 6,219,044 B1 Apr. 17, 2001
Ghani US 2002/0085030 A1 July 4, 2002

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 34, 36, 39, and 41–52,
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Ghani and Ansberry. Ans. 3–7.
The section 103(a) rejection as set forth in the Examiner’s Action
relies only on the Ghani and Ansberry references. The rejection no longer
relies (Final Act. 4) on the Ludwig reference to show above step C of claim
21. The Examiner now relies on the Ghani reference to show step C
(“[o]nce authorized, new window[s] such as list box/pull down menu that
overlaps the artifact area and the content area are displayed along with the
artifact area and the content area ([0082, 0083])” Ans. 6). Thus, all
arguments directed to the Ludwig reference are rendered moot. We address
herein the remaining arguments.
Appellant argues separate patentability for claim 21. Appeal Br. 12–
16. We select claim 21 as the representative claim for this rejection. To the
extent that Appellant discusses claims 29 and 36, Appellant merely
references the arguments directed to claim 21. Appeal Br. 17–18. Such a

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

4
referenced argument (or repeated argument) is not an argument for “separate
patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to
claim 21.
Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 22, 27, 29, 30, 34, 36, 39, and 41–52 further
herein.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments.
A.
The Examiner’s rejection (as discussed in the Examiner’s Answer)
explains why the Ghani and Ansberry references render obvious above steps
A–E of claim 21. The Examiner finds that Ghani teaches steps A and B of
claim 21.
As per claim 21, Ghani teaches a method performed by a
computing system for displaying a representation of a shared
window on a viewing display comprising receiving, at the
computing system, window data comprising at least data about
the shared window having both a content area and an application
artifact area (par [0090], [0135]), rendering by the computing
system for displaying on the viewing display, data representing
the t content area of the shared window while omitting the
application artifact area of the shared window, i.e. application
artifacts that are of no use to the viewer are not displayed to the
viewer (fig. 4b; par [0082]: the tool bar will be removed).
Ans. 3–4 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

5
Also, as noted supra, the Examiner finds that Ghani teaches step C of
claim 21.
Ghani teaches omitting the application artifact area of the
shared window for unauthorized users (fig. 4; para [0075]). Once
authorized, new window such as list box/pull down menu that
overlaps the artifact area and the content area are displayed
along with the artifact area and content area (para [0082,
0083]: the tool bar will be visible in the same manner as seen
from the presenter’s view wherein by definition a list box
displays the currently selected option next to a button marked
with a down arrow and, when the user clicks the button, the list
appears).
Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
Further, the Examiner finds that Ansberry teaches steps D and E of
claim 21.
Ansberry teaches determining, by a computing system, whether
window data includes data about a new shared window that
overlaps both application artifact area and content area of a
shared window and, in response to determining the window data
includes the data about the new shared window that overlaps both
the application artifact area and the content area, transmitting,
by the computing system for displaying on the viewing display,
data representing the new shared window, the application artifact
area, and the content area (fig. 7; col. 4, line, 48 - col. 5, line 51:
in response to determining that pull-down menus/new shared
windows has been selected, positioning the new shared window
relative to the location of its windows as they exist on the input
focus display to other participants).
Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

6
B.
B.1.a.
Appellant raises the following arguments in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
[Ansberry at col. 4, line 48 through column 5, line 52]
do[es] not describe a determination as to whether there is an
overlap between a new shared window and an application
artifact area of an earlier shared window.
Although Ansberry allows for collaboration between a
presenter and a plurality of participants (Ansberry at col. 3, lines
30-45), Ansberry’s system does not adjust the participants’ view
based on whether a new shared window overlaps both the
application artifact area and the content area. Instead,
Ansberry’s system attempts to position pull-down menus on
behalf of the client (participant) in the location that is most
appropriate for each participant. Id. at col. 4, lines 50-60.
. . . .
Ansberry provides no mention of determining whether
any received data includes data about a pull-down menu that
overlaps both an application artifact area and a content area of
the shared window. Ansberry also provides no mention of, in
response to determining the received data includes the data about
the pull-down menu that overlaps both the application artifact
area and the content area, providing data representing the new
shared window, the application artifact area, and the content area.
Appeal Br. 14–15.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
B.1.b.
First, as to Appellant’s argument that Ansberry does “not describe a
determination as to whether there is an overlap between a new shared
window and an application artifact area of an earlier shared window,” we
find no such limitation in claim 21. Rather, claim 21 requires a
Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

7
determination as to whether there is an overlap between (1) data about a
new shared window and (2) both the application artifact area and the content
area of an earlier shared window.3
Further, even if Appellant had argued the actual claim requirement,
Appellant’s argument would not be addressing the actual reasoning of the
Examiner’s rejection. Instead, Appellant attacks the Ansberry reference
singly for lacking a teaching that the Examiner relied on a combination of
Ghani and Ansberry to show. In particular, the rejection does not rely on
Ansberry for teaching “a new shared window” and “the application artifact
area and the content area of an earlier shared window.” Rather, the
Examiner relied on Ghani to show:
(A) “receiving . . . window data comprising at least data about the
shared window having both a content area and an application
artifact area” (Ans. 3),
(B) “rendering . . . for displaying . . . data representing the [] content
area . . . while omitting the application artifact area” (Ans. 3), and
(C) “omitting the application artifact area of the shared window for
unauthorized users [and] [o]nce authorized, new window such as
list box/pull down menu that overlaps the artifact area and the
content area are displayed along with the artifact area and content
area” (Ans. 6)(i.e., receiving and displaying new window data
about a new shared window),4

3 For our decision, we adopt Appellant’s view that “the shared window” in
step D of claim 21 refers to the earlier shared window and not the new
shared window.
4 Note that an artisan would understand that Ghani’s new shared window
(Fig. 4a) would overlap the earlier shared window (Fig. 4b).
Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

8
and relied on Ansberry to show:
(D) “determining . . . whether window data includes data about a new
shared window that overlaps both application artifact area and
content area of a shared window” (Ans. 4), and
(E) “in response to determining . . ., transmitting, . . . for displaying on
the viewing display, data representing the new shared window, the
application artifact area, and the content area” (Ans. 4).
In short, the Examiner relied on the “pull-down menus” of Ansberry to teach
or suggest the data that overlaps. Ans. 4. The Examiner then reasoned that
it would have been obvious to modify the pre-existing function of Ghani to
include functionality from Ansberry. Ans. 7. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (explaining the relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of those references).
Furthermore, in order to place the pull-down menus in a convenient
location for a participant (sharer), Ansberry must and does “determine” the
“size, color, contents, etc., of top-level window[]” which includes
determining whether the new “top-level” window and what existed on the
previous screen (components that normally include content and
artifacts/toolbars and menus) overlap or not. Ansberry col. 1, ll. 60–63.
Additionally, Figure 6, 614, is a “compare” step which teaches that Ansberry
determines if “location, size or map state of 1 and 2 windows [are] different”
or not and teaches that states of the windows are compared where state
Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

9
includes contents as taught in col. 1, lines 66–69 of Ansberry. Thus,
Ansberry compares the location of the pull-down menu with the window, its
boundaries, its contents, and even the colors that are present. See Ansberry,
col. 1, lines 60–63 defining “state” or “map state” of a window. Note that
the contents of Ansberry include content area and artifact area of the claim
when considered in view of teachings of Ghani. Thus, Ansberry determines
which components of the window are overlapped by the pull-down menu
and based on this determination moves the pull-down menu. To do so,
Ansberry refers to the “information” of the window which includes the
“Map [S]tate” of a window as shown in Figure 5. See also: “Conference
applications are made aware of the state, which include location, size, color,
contents, etc., of top-level windows on the input focus X server.” Ansberry,
col. 1, lines 60–63. “In addition to the window ID, the list entry contains a
set of member fields used for storing size, location, and visibility
information of the window as it exists on each participant’s display.”
Ansberry, col. 3, lines 54–56. Thus, various teachings of Ansberry, at the
least, suggest that Ansberry knows when the pull-down menu is, or is not,
overlapping the artifact and content portions of the window.
B.1.c.
Second, as to Appellant’s above argument that the Examiner errs
because Ansberry’s system “does not adjust the participants’ view based on
whether a new shared window overlaps both the application artifact area
and the content area,” again, we find no such limitation in claim 21. Appeal
Br. 14 (emphasis added). Rather, claim 21 requires a determination as to
whether there is an overlap between (1) data about a new shared window
Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

10
and (2) both the application artifact area and the content area of an earlier
shared window.
For the reasons already discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion because Ghani shows a new shared window that
overlaps an earlier shared window, and Ansberry shows that a determination
of the location of the pull-down menu of the new shared window results in
display of the data representing the new shared window, the application
artifact area, and the content area.
B.1.d.
Third, as to Appellant’s above argument that the Examiner errs
because there is “no mention of” particular claim language requiring
“determining whether any received data includes data about a pull-down
menu that overlaps both the application artifact area and a content area”
Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added). We disagree for the reason already
discussed supra.
Further, there is no ipsissimis verbis test within pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a). Appellant’s assertion that claim limitations are not expressly recited
in a reference does not evidence lack of prima facie obviousness, but, rather,
“begs the substantive question of whether there are facial differences to be
bridged.” See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A
reference does not have to satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test to disclose a
claimed element, therefore Appellant’s demand for such an exacting match
is not persuasive of error. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2009).
Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

11
B.2.
Also, Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In the Response to Argument section at page 6 of the
Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner directs attention to Ghani for
teaching omitting the application artifact area and providing a
new window that overlaps the artifact area and the content area,
citing Ghani’s Figure 4 and paragraphs [0075], [0082], and
[0083].
However, Ghani is referring to controlling whether a
toolbar of a whiteboard will appear for participants. In particular,
a toolbar is provided during a collaboration session only after a
participant is authorized as a presenter: “The toolbar does not
appear on the participants’ view, unless the participant is
authorized. When the presenter authorizes a participant to control
whiteboard 400, that participant’s toolbar will be activated (and
visible) on FIG. 4b in the same manner as seen from the
presenter’s view.” Ghani paragraph [0082]. Appellant notes that
this toolbar does not appear to be new window data comprising
data about a new shared window received by the participant
from the presenter (or any window in which a determination
would be made as to whether it overlaps an application artifact
area and content area).
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Again, Appellant
attacks a reference (Ghani) singly for lacking a teaching (of limitations in
steps D and E of claim 21) that the Examiner relied on a combination of
Ghani and Ansberry to show.
As discussed supra, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; see also Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Appeal 2020-000339
Application 14/262,542

12
CONCLUSION
The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 34,
36, 39, and 41–52 as being unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 34, 36, 39, and
41–52 as being unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
21, 22, 27,
29, 30, 34,
36, 39, 41–
52
103(a) Ghani,
Ansberry
21, 22, 27,
29, 30, 34,
36, 39, 41–52

Overall
Outcome

21, 22, 27,
29, 30, 34,
36, 39, 41–52

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED