Nan, Jennifer et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 4, 2019

13230737 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/230,737 09/12/2011
69316 7590 12/05/2019
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jennifer Nan
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.
333862.01 6038
EXAMINER
WONG, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2019 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENNIFER NAN,
PATRICE L. MINER, JESSE CLAY SATTERFIELD,
NILS SUNDELIN, BRET ANDERSON, MATTHEW I. WORLEY,
CHAITANYA D. SAREEN, ROBERT JARRETT, and TSZ YAN WONG
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1, 4--7, 9--11, 14--16, and 18-22. 1 (Final Act. 1
(Final Office Action, mailed December 29, 2016, "Final Act.").) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ), and we heard the appeal on October 24,
2019.
We affirm.
1 We use the word "Appellant" to refer to "applicant" as defined in 3 7
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.
as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the claimed invention relates to
"[ s ]ystems and methods for use with a pointer invocable navigational user
interface." (September 12, 2011 Specification ("Spec.") Abstract.) Claim 1
is illustrative, and is reproduced below (with minor reformatting):
1. A computerized system for displaying a pointer invocable
navigational user interface, the system comprising a
computing device including a processor, memory, and a
display, the processor being configured to execute a
navigational module, the navigational module being
configured to:
provide a navigational user interface that is
configured to:
have a hidden invocation region positioned
along an edge of the display in a multi-
window desktop environment having a
desktop and a plurality of application
program graphical user interfaces (GUis) for
a plurality of application programs
concurrently being executed by the
processor, the application program GUis
having an application order,
have no visible GUI element displayed in the
hidden invocation region when the
navigational user interface is in a hidden
state, and
include a dismissal region;
detect an invocation pointer input in the hidden
invocation region, the invocation pointer input
being received from a pointer device;
based at least on detecting the invocation pointer
input in the hidden invocation region, display a
2
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
visible GUI selector element of the navigational
user interface including a focus switch selector,
configured to, upon selection, switch focus
according to the application order to a next
application program GUI of the plurality of
application program GUis not currently displayed,
the focus switch selector including a graphical
indication comprising a preview of the next
application program GUI in the application order;
receive a scroll input to scroll through the
application order and, in response, update the
visible GUI selector element to include a graphical
indication comprising a preview of the next
application program GUI for each successive
application program GUI of the plurality of
application program GUis in the application order,
without switching focus of the multi-window
desktop environment;
while the visible GUI selector element is displayed,
receive a focus switching input via the focus switch
selector from the pointer device;
in response to the focus switching input, switch
focus of the multi-window desktop environment to
the next application program GUI and display the
next application program GUI; and
place the navigational user interface in the hidden
state upon detection of a dismissal pointer input
received from the pointer device in the dismissal
reg10n.
3
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Oran et al. ("Oran") us 5,757,371 May 26, 1998
Ludolph us 5,874,958 February 23, 1999
Hugh us 6,166,736 December 26, 2000
Kaply US 6,215,490 Bl April 10, 2001
Hellyar et al. ("Hellyar") US 2003/0117440 Al June 26, 2003
Zoller et al. ("Zoller") US 2003/0160816 Al August 28, 2003
Wynn et al. ("Wynn") US 6,667,751 Bl December 23, 2003
Jones et al. ("Jones") US 2005/0039147 Al February 17, 2005
Matthews et al.
US 2006/0107231 Al May 18, 2006
("Matthews")
Holecek et al. ("Holecek") US 2006/0161861 Al July 20, 2006
Schulz et al. ("Schulz") US 2008/0229232 Al September 18, 2008
Claims 1, 6-7, 9--11, 16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaply in view of Hellyar, Oran, and
Schulz (or alternatively with Wynn and/or Holecek). (See Final Act. 5-12.)
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kaply in view of Hellyar, Oran, Schulz ( or alternatively
with Wynn and/or Holecek) and further in view of Ludolph. (See Final Act.
12-13.)
4
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kaply in view of Hellyar, Oran, Schulz ( or alternatively
with Wynn and/or Holecek) and further in view of Zoller. (See Final Act.
13-14.)
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kaply in view of Hellyar, Oran, Schulz ( or alternatively
with Wynn and/or Holecek), and further in view of Hugh. (See Final Act.
14--15.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal.
"have no visible GUI element displayed
in the hidden invocation region . . . "
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds paragraphs
35 and 53 of Schulz "teach[] a navigational user interface ha[ ving] no visible
GUI element displayed in a hidden invocation region when the navigational
user interface is in a hidden state." (Final Act. 8.) According to the
Examiner, "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include
the teaching of Schulz for the purpose of maximizing screen space." (Id.)
Appellant contends that Schulz only teaches controls within an individual
application rather than a multi-application environment, therefore, "Schulz
do[ es] not allow the user to navigate through GUis of multiple application
programs as claimed, and cannot be considered a 'navigational user
interface."' (App. Br. 14.)
5
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
We agree with the Examiner that Schulz's "user interface facilitates
navigation of functionality, i.e. 'a navigational user interface"' and"[ s ]uch
functionality includes, for example, software that allows performing
adjustments and software that allows selecting projects (e.g.[,] in figure 4
items 406 and 416), i.e.[,] 'application programs' (e.g.[,] these multiple
application programs function within an overall application program)."
(Ans. 13.) Importantly, even assuming arguendo that Schulz does not teach
multiple application programs, the combination would teach the limitation at
issue and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
"receive a scroll input to scroll through the application order ...
comprising a preview of the next application program GUI for each
successive application program . .. without switching focus of the multi-
window desktop environment;"
The Examiner finds that Hellyar teaches "a selector element including
a graphical indication comprising a preview and updating the selector
element to include a graphical indication comprising a preview of a next
application program GUI ... without switching focus of a multi-window
desktop environment." (Final Act. 7.) According to the Examiner, "[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention to modify the teachings of [ the primary reference] Kaply to
include the teaching of Hellyar for the purpose of quickly and easily
providing more informative navigation." (Id.)
Appellant contends that such a combination "would render Kaply
unfit for its intended purpose [because] Kaply specifically touts the
6
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
advantages of immediately focusing a window" whereas Hellyar does not
immediately switch focus to a window but rather provides a preview of the
window. (App. Br. 17.) Therefore, according to Appellant, "modification of
Kaply with the features of Hellyar would render the modified Kaply unfit for
its intended purpose." (Id. at 18; Reply Br. 2.)
We are not persuaded that Kaply would not be modified to employ a
preview of a window as taught by Hellyar. We agree with the Examiner that
"[ w ]hile Kaply describes an embodiment where the focus of a corresponding
window is switched quickly and easily [to] locat[e] a hidden or partially
obscured window[,] ... Kaply does not describe anywhere that not
switching focus is necessarily disadvantageous." (Ans. 14.) Indeed,
Kaply's intended purpose is not the immediate focusing of a window, as
Appellant suggests, but to "easily locate any desired window by traversing
the graphical pointer across the slider notches." (Kaply, Abstract, 2: 19--21.)
Bringing a window into focus is but one way of accomplishing the intended
purpose of Kaply. We agree with the Examiner that "quickly and easily
locating a window can occur without switching focus and this is clearly seen
e.g.[,] in Hellyar which uses previews, wherein a user locates a window
without switching focus[] . . . . In other words, instead of immediately
switching focus of the windows upon user input, previews are immediately
displayed with respect to the user input." (Ans. 14.)
We are similarly not persuaded by Appellant's argument that there is
"no mention of a scroll input with respect to previews of application
program GUis" in Hellyar because as the Examiner explains, "Kaply teaches
user input including scrolling" and the combination would teach the
limitation at issue. (App. Br. 17; Final Act 6; Ans. 15.) One cannot show
7
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at
413; In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 413.
Appellant also argues that "Kaply disparages a task bar selection
process that is akin to Hellyar ... [ and] Kaply appears to disparage
keyboard-based techniques for locating windows." (App. Br. 19--20; Reply
Br. 3--4.) Therefore, according to Appellant, "the Examiner is relying on
impermissible hindsight reconstruction ... to formulate a rationale
supporting the combination of Hellyar with Kaply." However, in addition,
to teach away, a reference must actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage investigation into the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The teaching in Kaply cited by Appellant as
teaching away (App. Br. 18 ("Another approach is to call out a different
window by clicking on an icon in the task bar ... all windows may not be
identified or easily located on the task bar. . . . The task bar selection
process is also quite cumbersome"), 19 ("While this 'Alt' -'Tab' keyboard
technique does enable the user to identify all open windows identified in the
task list, it is cumbersome and sometimes difficult to use in practice")) does
not "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" a task bar or the use of
keyboard-based. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Moreover, as the Examiner
points out, "[t]he issue that Kaply has with the task bar of Windows 95 is
that, 'when multiple versions of the same application are running', it might
be hard to tell which icon corresponds to the window the user wants to
find ... making it 'quite cumbersome' ... [but] Hellyar actually solves this
issue by using previews, making it easier for a user to recognize a desired
8
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
window for focus." (Ans. 16.) Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner
that:
Kaply does not state that keyboard based techniques should
never be used, only that the Alt-Tab technique with respect to
"Windows 95 operating system" is purportedly difficult to use
because the "task list [that is presented by pressing Alt-Tab] is
not displayed persistently, but must be accessed using a keyboard
command" and "certain windows, however, may not be
identified by tasks in the list". . . . Moreover, while Hellyar
discloses an embodiment of using a keyboard based technique,
Hellyar actually describes other means to navigate between
windows ....
(Id. at 16-17.) Thus, we are not persuaded that Kaply teaches away from the
claimed combination.
"have no visible GUI element displayed in the hidden invocation region
when the navigational user interface is in a hidden state"
The Examiner finds that "Oran teaches providing a navigational user
interface having a hidden invocation region positioned along an edge of a
display and including a dismissal region .... " (Final Act. 7.) The
Examiner also finds that "Schulz teaches a navigational user interface has no
visible GUI element displayed in a hidden invocation region when the
navigational user interface is in a hidden state ... [, therefore, i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to
modify the teachings of the combination to include the teaching of Schulz
for the purpose of maximizing screen space." (Id. at 8, emphasis added.)
Appellant contends that "[b ]ecause a small sliver of the taskbar is
visible even in the auto hide mode, Oran does not disclose a hidden
invocation region positioned along an edge of a display in which no visible
GUI element is displayed in the hidden invocation region." (App. Br. 22.)
9
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
This argument is not persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 413; In re
Keller, 642 F.2d at 413. We are also not persuaded by Appellant's
contention that the Examiner has combined an excessive number of
references, which is "evidence that hindsight reconstruction was
impermissibly used to develop the rejection." (App. Br. 23-24.) Appellant,
however, points to no legal authority for this proposition and based on the
current record, the Examiner's finding that "[i]t would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the
teachings of the combination to include the teaching of Schulz for the
purpose of maximizing screen space" has not been persuasively shown to be
unreasonable or lacking in rational underpinnings. In re Kahn, 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,418 (2007). (Final Act. 8.)
"including a focus switch selector,
configured to, upon selection, switch focus according to
the application order to a next application program GUI . .. "
The Examiner finds that Kaply discloses a focus switch selector and if
the combination of Kaply, Hellyar, Oran, and Schulz does not teach the
limitation at issue, its combination with either Wynn or Holecek would teach
this limitation. (Final Act. 6-9.) Appellant, however, contends that neither
Wynn nor Holecek discloses the use of a focus switch selector. (Appeal Br.
25-26.) Appellant's contention is not persuasive because one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
10
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at
413; In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 413. (Ans. 20-22).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and independent claims 11 and 20, which are not
argued separately and contain similar limitations at issue. (App. Br. 12-32.)
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 6-7, 9, 10, 16,
18, and 19, which are not argued separately, and depend on either claim 1 or
11. (Id. at 26-32.)
"where the dismissal region ...
includes all space on the display outside of the visible GUI
selector element after receiving the focus switching input, ... "
Claim 4 recites, in part, "where the dismissal region ... includes all
space on the display outside of the visible GUI selector element after
receiving the focus switching input." Claim 14 recites a similar limitation.
The Examiner finds that:
However, Schulz teaches a dismissal region includes space on a
display outside of a hidden invocation region prior to receiving
an input (e.g.[,] in paragraphs 35 and 50-53), and where the
hidden invocation region is a column of single pixels, not
including pixels proximate comer regions of the display ( e.g. in
figure 4 items 405 and 415). It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the
teachings of the combination to include the teaching of Schulz
for the purpose of maximizing screen space. Ludolph teaches a
dismissal region including all space on a display outside of a
visible GUI selector element after receiving an input (e.g.[,] in
column 3 lines 25--45[;] e.g.[,] in column 9 lines 10-29 and
column 6 lines 21-55, and figure 158). It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
to modify the teachings of the combination to include the
teaching of Ludolph for the purpose of incorporating additional
intuitive dismissal means.
11
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
(Final Act. 12-13.) Appellant concedes that "Ludolph describes an
embodiment in which an input event occurring outside of an active sliding
panel triggers the panel to close ... [but contends that] there is no
suggestion in Ludolph that the alleged dismissal region includes 'all space
on the display."' (App. Br. 33.) Appellant's argument is not persuasive
because the Examiner's reading of Ludolph is not unreasonable. (Final Act.
12-13; Ans. 22-23.) Specifically, column 3, lines 25 to 25 of Ludolph
disclose what happens if an input event occurs "within an active sliding
panel" and "outside an active sliding panel," and it would not be
unreasonable for the Examiner, or one of ordinary skill in the art, to interpret
Ludolph discussion of what happens if an event occurs "outside an active
sliding panel" to suggest "all space on the display outside of the visible GUI
selector element." We are similarly not persuaded by Appellant's contention
that "there is no disclosure in Ludolph that indicates that a sliding panel is a
GUI selector element of a navigational user interface, or that any input is
received prior to the dismissal of an open sliding panel" because the
Examiner relies on other references for these elements of the claim and one
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d at 413; In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 413. (Ans. 23.)
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 4 and 14, which are not argued separately and contain similar
limitations at issue. (App. Br. 32-34.)
12
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
"where the visible GUI selector element is displayed upon
passage of a threshold period of time after detecting the
invocation pointer input in the hidden invocation region. "
Claims 5 and 15 recite, in part, "where the visible GUI selector
element is displayed upon passage of a threshold period of time after
detecting the invocation pointer input in the hidden invocation region." The
Examiner finds that while "Kaply does not specifically teach where the
visible GUI selector element is displayed upon passage of a threshold
period of time after detecting the invocation pointer input in the hidden
invocation region [], ... Zoller teaches" this limitation. (Final Act. 13.)
According to the Examiner, "[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of
the combination to include the teaching of Zoller for the purpose of
indicating desired invocation." (Id.)
Appellant, however, contends that "Zoller is merely a piece of
identifying information and is not equivalent to the GUI selector element of
the subject application." (App. Br. 36.) Appellant further contends that
Zoller "fails to define a specific hidden invocation region." (Id.) These
contentions are not persuasive because the Examiner is relying on other
references for these limitations and one cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 413; In re
Keller, 642 F.2d at 413. (Ans. 24--25.) For the foregoing reasons, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 15.
13
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
"where the application program GUI display position is
one of a snapped, filled, or full screen position. "
Claims 21 and 22 recite, in part, "where the application program GUI
display position is one of a snapped, filled, or full screen position." The
Examiner finds that "Hugh teaches a drag and drop input of an element to
switch focus to a next item in a display position indicated by the drag and
drop input, where the display position is one of a snapped, filled, or
fullscreen position." (Final Act. 14--15.) Appellant contends that "Hugh
fails to disclose or suggest an implementation in which the newly opened
window is in a filled or full screen position." (App. Br. 38.) We agree with
the Examiner that the "claims only require one of them [(i.e., snapped, filled,
or full screen position)] and Hugh teaches at least one" (i.e., "being snapped
to a certain region/position or fills a certain region/position depending on
user input."). For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 21 and 22.
In summary:
1, 6-7, 9-11,
16, 18-20
103(b)
CONCLUSION
Kaply, Hellyar,
Oran, and Schulz
( or alternatively
Wynn and/or
Holecek)
14
1, 6-7, 9-
11, 16,
18-20
Appeal2018-001672
Application 13/230,737
4, 14 103(b)
5,15 103(b)
21,22 103(b)
Overall
Outcome
Kaply, Hellyar,
Oran, Schulz (or
alternatively Wynn 4,14
and/or Holecek),
and Ludolph
Kaply, Hellyar,
Oran, Schulz ( or
alternatively Wynn 5,15
and/or Holecek),
and Zoller
Kaply, Hellyar,
Oran, Schulz ( or
alternatively Wynn 21,22
and/or Holecek),
and Hugh
1, 4--7, 9--
11, 14--16,
18-22
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--7, 9-11, 14--
16, and 18-22.
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
15