Vranjes, Miron et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2019

13872159 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2019)

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.
13/872,159 04/29/2013 Miron Vranjes 338796-US-NP 7187
69316 7590 12/31/2019
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
CASILLAS, ROLAND J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2019 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MIRON VRANJES, MATTHEW ISAAC WORLEY, NILS
ANDERS SUNDELIN, CHAITANYA SAREEN, ROBERT JAMES
JARRETT, JESSE CLAY SATTERFIELD, ALICE STEINGLASS,
and RICHIE FANG
____________

Appeal 2018-004907
Application 13/872,159
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–10, 12–23, which are all the claims
pending in this application.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on December 6, 2019.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Claims 2 and 11 have been canceled.
Appeal 2018-004907
Application 13/872,159

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to methods and interfaces for
switching between two authentication user interfaces as the user interacts
with the graphical user interface through finger contacts and gestures on a
touch-sensitive surface. See Spec. ¶¶ 6–8.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
detecting a selection of visible content of a first
application window within a user interface and detecting an
initiation of a directional placement instruction regarding the
selected visible content of the first application window within
the user interface;
converting the selected visible content of the first
application window within the user interface into a placeable
representation of an application associated with the selected
visible content responsive to the initiation of the directional
placement instruction and prior to completion of the directional
placement instruction;
detecting the completion of the directional placement
instruction after conversion of the selected visible content of the
first application window within the user interface; and
launching a second application window associated with
the selected visible content, the launching being triggered by
the detection of the completion of the directional placement
instruction.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3–10, 12–14, 16, and 18–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over La Fetra (US 2006/0053384 A1; pub.
Appeal 2018-004907
Application 13/872,159

3
Mar. 9, 2006), Schacher (US 6,002,402; iss. Dec. 14, 1999), and Chaudhri
(US 2009/0058821 A1; pub. Mar. 5, 2009). Final Act. 4–18.
Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over La Fetra, Schacher, Chaudhri, and Cutler (US
2005/0188329 A1; pub. Aug. 25, 2005). Final Act. 18–20.

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds La Fetra discloses the recited
method steps of “detecting a selection of visible content . . . and detecting an
initiation of a directional placement instruction,” “detecting the completion
of the directional placement instruction” and “launching second application
window associated with the selected visible content,” but not “converting the
selected visible content . . . into a placeable representation of an application .
. . and prior to completion of the directional placement instruction.” Final
Act. 4–5 (citing La Fetra Figs. 2, 6; ¶¶ 27, 37 (drag and drop)). The
Examiner relies on Schacher as disclosing “converting the selected visible
content . . . into a placeable representation of an application.” Final Act. 6
(citing Schacher Fig. 3; col. 7, l. 41–col. 8, l. 2). Finally, the Examiner finds
Chaudhri discloses converting the selected content “prior to completion of
the directional placement instruction.” Final Act. 7 (citing Chaudhri Fig. 6;
¶ 66).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in characterizing the sensitive
area in the media player of La Fetra as the claimed second application
window that is launched upon detecting that the directional placement, or the
drag and drop, is completed because:
However, nothing in La Fetra discloses or suggests that the
sensitive area is “active” or “activated” as asserted by the Office.
Appeal 2018-004907
Application 13/872,159

4
La Fetra discloses a few scenarios of opening content, none of
which disclose or suggest, “launching a second application
window.” In paragraph [0027], La Fetra states “selection of a
link to online content triggers the internet browser application to
go to the desired URL and display the selected content from the
internet.” However, triggering a browser to go to a URL does
not disclose or suggest, “launching a second application
window.” Paragraph [0029] of La Fetra states, “a module
predefined with the title: ‘My Music’ is predefined to open
content with a music media player application, through the media
player window within the GUI. That is, the GUI will attempt to
open any link contained in the My Music module with a music
media player.” Opening content in a media application through
the media player window within the already launched GUI does
not disclose or suggest that a second application window is
launched. These scenarios fail to disclose or suggest any notion
of the sensitive area being “active” or “activated,” much less
“launching a second application window.” Even if La Fetra
disclosed or suggested that the sensitive area was “active” or
“activated,” which the Appellant does not concede, the Appellant
submits that activating a sensitive area does not reasonably
disclose or suggest, “launching a second application window.”
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant specifically asserts “La Fetra’s sensitive area being
used to open content does not reasonably disclose or suggest “launching a
second application window” because nothing in La Fetra disclose or
suggests that any window is launched responsive to the disclosed
dragging/dropping operations.” Id.4
The Examiner responds by explaining that:
However, the claim limitation recites “launching a second
application window . . .”, which means the window is launched
not the application itself. So, even though La Fetra describes the
applications associated with the available content being launched

4 We do not address Appellant’s other contentions, including the discussion
of a declaration filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, because this contention is
dispositive of the issue on appeal.
Appeal 2018-004907
Application 13/872,159

5
at the time the GUI is launched, the second application window
(i.e. opened selected content) is not launched until the selected
content is dropped into the sensitive area of the GUI itself [Fig.
6, (670), Para. 37 of La Fetra].
Ans. 5.
La Fetra discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) 100 that includes
multiple modules called categories 106 and a media player window 114.
¶ 18. The description of Figures 1 and 6 of La Fetra teaches selection of a
link and launching its content in the sensitive area 118 of the media player
114 when the user drags a link from the category list and drops the link onto
the sensitive area on the media player. See ¶¶ 26, 35–37. Therefore, as
further asserted by Appellant, “the sensitive area and the opened content are
disclosed as being displayed in the same window (e.g., the GUI), which is
opened and displayed prior to the drag/drop operation” or “refreshing or
loading a webpage within an already opened browser or within an already
displayed GUI window does not disclose or suggest launching a new
browser or GUI window.” Reply Br. 3.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
proposed combination does not teach or suggest the recited features of claim
1. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s position with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1,
other independent claims which recite similar limitations (see claims 10 and
19), as well as the remaining claims dependent therefrom. See Appeal Br.
20–23 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2018-004907
Application 13/872,159

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 15–21 103 La Fetra, Schacher,
Chaudhri
1, 3–10, 12–
14, 16, 18–
23
15, 17 103 La Fetra, Schacher,
Chaudhri, Cutler
15, 17
Overall Outcome 1, 3–10, 12–
23

REVERSED