Z124

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2021

2020000652 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 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.
14/885,139 10/16/2015 Sanjiv Sirpal 6583-18-CON 3206
111285 7590 04/13/2021
Sheridan Ross P.C.
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
COHEN, YARON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2021 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):
edocket@sheridanross.com
flexpatents-sr@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SANJIV SIRPAL, PAUL E. REEVES, ALEXANDER DE PAZ,
and RODNEY W. SCHROCK
____________

Appeal 2020-000652
Application 14/885,139
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 21–40. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Z124.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000652
Application 14/885,139

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention manages and arranges stacked windows in a
mobile device by arranging the windows logically in a manner a user easily
understands. The “deck of cards” arrangement of stacked windows allows
the user to navigate active and inactive windows quickly between multiple
displays. See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶ 9. Claim 21 is illustrative:
21. A non-transitory computer readable medium, having
stored thereon, computer-executable instructions executable by
a processor, the computer-executable instructions causing the
processor to execute a method for managing window stacks for
a mobile device, the computer-executable instructions
comprising:
instructions to create a composite display having a first
portion and a second portion;
instructions to create a first window stack logically
associated with the first portion of the composite display,
wherein the first window stack is a logical arrangement stored
in a memory of the mobile device that describes a display order
from a top to a bottom of the first window stack of one or more
of active windows, inactive windows, and a desktop executing
on the mobile device that are associated with the first portion of
the composite display, and wherein an inactive window or
desktop is not displayed;
instructions to display a first window of a first open
application that is at a logical top position of the first window
stack on the first portion of the composite display;
instructions to receive a change in the mobile device
from a first state to a second state, wherein in the first state the
first portion of the composite display is active and, in the
second state, both the first portion and the second portion of the
composite display are active;
in response to the change to the second state, instructions
to create a second window stack logically associated with the
second portion of the composite display, wherein the second
window stack is a second logical arrangement stored in the
memory of the mobile device that describes a display order
Appeal 2020-000652
Application 14/885,139

3
from a top to a bottom of the second window stack of one or
more active windows, inactive windows, and the desktop
executing on the mobile device that are associated with the
second portion of the composite display, wherein the first
window stack and the second window stack comprise a window
identifier and a display identifier, wherein the window identifier
identifies the window and/or desktop in the stack, and wherein
the display identifier identifies to which of the first window
stack and/or second window stack a window is associated;
instructions to determine a second window or desktop
associated with the second window stack to display on the
second portion of the composite display, wherein the second
window or desktop comprises a window or desktop in the
second window stack that is active and that is at a logical top
position of the second window stack; and
after determining the desktop is at the logical top position
of the second window stack and should be displayed on the
second portion of the composite display, instructions to display
the desktop on the second portion of the composite display and
the first window on the first portion of the composite display.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 21–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dahl (US 2011/0216064 A1; published Sept. 8, 2011),
Agarwal (US 4,688,167; issued Aug. 18, 1987), and Averett (US
2009/0327965 A1; published Dec. 31, 2009). Final Act. 3–15.2

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed January
26, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed July 30, 2018
(supplemented April 11, 2019) (“Appeal Br.”); and (3) the Examiner’s
Answer mailed August 6, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-000652
Application 14/885,139

4
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND CONTENTIONS
Regarding independent claim 21, the Examiner finds that Dahl
discloses a computer readable medium with stored instructions that cause a
processor to (1) create a composite display with first and second portions,
and (2) receive a change in a mobile device from a first state with an active
first portion to a second state where both display portions are active. Final
Act. 3–4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Dahl does not manage
window stacks by creating (1) the recited first window stack logically
associated with the display’s first portion, and (2) the recited second window
stack logically associated with the display’s second portion, the Examiner
cites Agarwal for teaching these features. Final Act. 5–8. The Examiner
also cites Averett for teaching the recited window identifier, and that
providing this identifier in connection with the Dahl/Agarwal system would
have been obvious. Final Act. 8–9.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the
recited first stack, let alone creating a second stack responsive to changing to
a second state as claimed. Appeal Br. 5–8. According to Appellant, not
only are Agarwal’s virtual screens not window stacks, they lack an active
window, inactive window, and a desktop as claimed. See Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant contends that because neither Dahl nor Agarwal teaches or
suggests the recited window stacks, it is unclear how it would have been
obvious to include this undisclosed feature in Dahl as the Examiner
proposes. See id.
Appellant adds that not only does the cited prior art lack the recited
display and window identifiers as well as the two recited window stacks, it is
unclear how it would have been obvious to track which window stack each
Appeal 2020-000652
Application 14/885,139

5
window application belongs to, particularly since the prior art shows virtual
screens instead of the recited window stack. Appeal Br. 8–9.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by finding
that Dahl, Agarwal, and Averett collectively would have taught or suggested
a computer readable medium with stored instructions that cause a processor
to (1) create a first window stack logically associated with a first portion of a
composite display, where the first window stack is a logical arrangement
stored in a mobile device’s memory that describes a display order from a top
to a bottom of the first window stack of one or more of active windows,
inactive windows, and a desktop; and (2) create a second window stack
responsive to a received change in the mobile device to a second state where
both display portions are active, where the second window stack describes a
display order from a top to a bottom of the first window stack of one or more
of active windows, inactive windows, and a desktop, where both window
stacks comprise (a) a window identifier identifying the window and/or
desktop in the stack, and (b) a display identifier identifying to which the first
and/or second stack a window is associated?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Dahl,
Agarwal, and Averett for collectively at least suggesting the disputed
limitations. The Examiner maps the recited first state to that shown in
Dahl’s Figure 32 which shows an electronic device 3201 in a fully folded
configuration whose exposed display area displays application icons,
Appeal 2020-000652
Application 14/885,139

6
including application icon 3206. See Final Act. 4; Dahl ¶ 151. The
Examiner also maps the recited second state to that shown in Dahl’s Figure
35 which shows a fully extended configuration where the center display area
shows an application launched by moving application icon 3206 from the
left-most display area to the center display area. See Final Act. 4; Dahl
¶¶ 152–155.
Although the respective window displays shown in Figure 35 result
from a user manually moving an application icon from the left display area
to the center display area, we nonetheless see no error in the Examiner’s
finding that Dahl at least suggests changing that which is displayed,
including creating and displaying certain content on various windows,
responsive to changing from a first state, namely that associated with the
folded configuration in Dahl’s Figure 32, to a second state associated with
the fully extended configuration shown in Dahl’s Figure 35. That Dahl’s
paragraph 80 notes that the device can automatically adjust a user interface
or display images when a user changes the device’s physical configuration
as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 5) only bolsters this conclusion. Given this
automatic user interface adjustment and image display functionality, Dahl at
least suggests that automatically displaying certain content, such as
application icons, on various display portions—such as those shown in
Dahl’s Figure 35—responsive to changing from the first recited state to the
second recited state would have been at least an obvious variation.
To be sure, Dahl’s application icons are not stacked, but rather
arranged in a two-dimensional array in Figures 32 to 35, where 123 icons are

3 Although the Examiner finds that nine icons are displayed in Dahl’s Figure
33 (Ans. 4), there are nonetheless 12 icons shown in that figure.
Appeal 2020-000652
Application 14/885,139

7
arrayed in Figures 32 and 33, and 11 icons are arrayed in Figure 35 resulting
from moving one icon to the center window. Nevertheless, we see no error
in the Examiner citing Agarwal to show that representing applications via a
stack of windows, such as the “virtual screens” shown in Agarwal’s Figure
3, is known in the art, and, in light of this teaching, concluding that
providing such a stack to represent the applications in Dahl in lieu of the
disclosed two-dimensional array of icons would have been obvious. See
Ans. 4–5 (noting that when Dahl is combined with Agarwal, Dahl’s side-by-
side icons would be displayed as a stack of windows similar to Agarwal’s
Figure 3); see also Agarwal col. 5, ll. 20–29. Not only would stacking
application-based windows in Dahl as the Examiner proposes conserve
screen space, but it would enable the user to assign applications represented
by such stacks to certain screens that, for example, are dedicated to different
subject matter. See Ans. 5 (noting this point). In short, using a stacked
visual representation for multiple applications in lieu of a 2-dimensional
array is a creative step well within the level of ordinarily skilled artisans.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Therefore, creating a second window stack, such as that shown in Agarwal’s
Figure 3, responsive to changing from the recited first state to the recited
second state in Dahl would have been obvious over Dahl’s and Agarwal’s
collective teachings.
Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 7–8), we
see no error in the Examiner’s equating Agarwal’s stack of virtual screens in
Figure 3 to the recited window stack. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 4. According
to the Specification’s paragraph 167, a “window stack” is a logical
Appeal 2020-000652
Application 14/885,139

8
arrangement of active and/or inactive windows or display objects for a
multi-screen device. Moreover, the Specification’s paragraph 25 defines the
term “window” explicitly as a typically rectangular displayed image on at
least part of a display that contains or provides content different from the
rest of the screen.
Agarwal’s stack of virtual screens in Figure 3 at least suggests a
window stack in light of this description, for Agarwal’s virtual screens are
arranged in a logical arrangement of active and/or inactive windows under
the Examiner’s mapping. See Ans. 4 (equating Agarwal’s (1) virtual screen
VS3 to an active window, and (2) virtual screens VS1, VS2, and VS4 to
inactive windows). To the extent Appellant contends that Agarwal’s virtual
screens do not constitute a window stack, such arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Nor do we see error in the Examiner’s finding that Agarwal’s
“window stack” is a logical arrangement that describes a display order from
a top to a bottom of the stack of one or more active windows, inactive
windows, and a desktop as claimed. Final Act. 6; Ans. 4. In short,
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s equating Agarwal’s
(1) virtual screen VS3 to an active window, and (2) virtual screens VS1,
VS2, and VS4 to inactive windows that, when considered in light of Dahl,
these stacked windows overlie a desktop. In this sense, then, the desktop
and overlying virtual windows collectively form a “window stack” as
claimed. See Final Act. 6 (noting that Dahl’s desktop in paragraph 94 is
implicitly disposed beneath the stack of active and inactive windows); Ans.
4.
Appeal 2020-000652
Application 14/885,139

9
We also see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Dahl, Agarwal,
and Averett collectively at least suggest the recited window stacks
comprising the recited window and display identifiers. See Final Act. 8–9;
Ans. 6. First, Agarwal at least suggests the recited window identifier by
identifying each virtual screen in the stack with a corresponding label,
namely VS1 to VS4, respectively. See Agarwal, col. 5, ll. 18–29. Given this
teaching, providing similar identifiers for each window in multiple stacks of
such windows, such as the recited first and second window stacks under the
Examiner’s proposed combination, would have been at least an obvious
variation to, among other things, uniquely identify each window in each
respective stack.
Second, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 6), under the proposed
combination, the Dahl/Agarwal system would need to track which stack
belongs to a particular window—functionality that is consistent with Dahl’s
ability to manage and display content on different screens as shown in at
least Figures 32 to 35. See Dahl ¶¶ 151–155. Therefore, providing stack-
based display identifiers to identify particular windows associated with
respective stacks would have been at least an obvious variation not only in
light of Averett’s window identifier that identifies a particular window
associated with displayed tiles in paragraph 26, but also Agarwal’s virtual
screen identifiers that indicate those screens’ association with a particular
window, namely that of the operating system. See Agarwal, col. 5, ll. 30–
33. Appellant’s contention that the cited prior art lacks the recited window
and display identifiers (Appeal Br. 8–9) is, therefore, unavailing given the
above-noted functionality of the cited references that collectively at least
suggest these identifiers.
Appeal 2020-000652
Application 14/885,139

10
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21, and claims 22–40 not argued separately with particularity.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
21–40 103 Dahl, Agarwal,
Averett
21–40

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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED