2019005902 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2021)

Google LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 14, 2021

2019005902 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 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. 15/336,661 10/27/2016 Alexander Friedrich KUSCHER 1233-876US01 1020 98449 7590 01/14/2021 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER HO, RUAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2021 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): pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEXANDER FRIEDRICH KUSCHER, JENNIFER SHIEN-MING CHEN, and SEBASTIEN VINCENT GABRIEL Appeal 2019-005902 Application 15/336,661 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 10–13, and 16–19. Claims 8, 9, 14, 15, and 20 are objected to as dependent on a rejected base claim. We have jurisdiction over the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Google LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005902 Application 15/336,661 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to “an overview mode . . . to present overview windows of all applications currently running on the computing device.” Spec. Abstract. In particular, the overview mode includes one overview window for applications that were “in full-screen mode” and a separate overview window for applications that were in a “windowed mode” (i.e., not in full-screen). Id. An example of such an overview mode is shown in Figure 2A, which is reproduced below: Figure 2A illustrates an “example graphical user interface 200 in overview mode” that includes two separate spaces: (1) “windowed overview space 120” for displaying an overview of applications that were running in a windowed mode and (2) “full-screen overview space 150” for displaying an overview of applications that were running in full-screen mode. Spec. ¶ 32. Appeal 2019-005902 Application 15/336,661 3 “[F]ull-screen overview windows may be arranged in a stack in the full- screen overview space, while windowed overview windows may be arranged side by side in one or more rows in the windowed overview space.” Id. ¶ 26. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claim 1, reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized, is representative: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a first user selection of a user interface element corresponding to an overview mode of a computing device; determining, in response to the first user selection, whether applications are running in a windowed mode or a full- screen mode; when it is determined that a first plurality of applications of the applications are running in the windowed mode: generating a first overview window for each of the first plurality of the applications; providing the first overview windows in a flat arrangement; and providing, for display on the computing device in the overview mode, the first overview windows in a first overview space; and when it is determined that a second plurality of applications of the applications are running in the full-screen mode: generating a second overview window for each of the second plurality of the applications; providing the second overview windows in a stacked arrangement; and Appeal 2019-005902 Application 15/336,661 4 providing, for display on the computing device in the overview mode, the second overview windows in a second overview space, the second overview space being displayed with the first overview space in the overview mode. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Shin US 2016/0147388 A1 May 26, 2016 Peng US 2016/0148423 A1 May 26, 2016 REJECTION Claims 1–7, 10–13, and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Shin and Peng. Final Act. 4. ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “receiving a first user selection of a user interface element corresponding to an overview mode” and “determining, in response to the first user selection, whether applications are running in a windowed mode or a full-screen mode.” In the Final Office Action, the Examiner relies on the “applications in windowed mode” shown in Peng’s Figure 3 and Shin’s Figures 7A–C, as well as the “user selection” of a user touching a touch screen. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that “the Examiner does not state that either [Shin or Peng] discloses making a determination ‘whether applications are running in a windowed mode or a full-screen mode’ nor provide reasoning why making such a determination would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” Appeal Br. 7. Appeal 2019-005902 Application 15/336,661 5 In the Answer, the Examiner determines that it was “well-known in the art” that (1) “windowed display can be either full screen or partial screen” and (2) “a partial screen window can be adjusted into full-screen window upon receiving a user input.” Ans. 7. The Examiner further determines that in the Specification of the present invention, “there is no given description regarding the switch operation between full-screen and windowed display that is different from the commonly known operating system” or “detailing the determination of windowed mode from full-screen mode.” Id. We agree with Appellant. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art” because “inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–19 (2007). Here, even though a “windowed mode,” “full-screen mode,” “user selection,” and “overview mode” may well have been independently known in the prior art (see, e.g., Shin Figs. 7A, 10A), we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not addressed the elements arranged as claimed or the reasons for such a combination. In particular, the Examiner has not addressed why it would have been obvious to determine whether applications are windowed vs. full- screen in response to a user selection for an overview mode. Claim 1 further recites “the second overview space being displayed with the first overview space,” where the first overview space is for displaying “in a flat arrangement” a window for each application running in Appeal 2019-005902 Application 15/336,661 6 a windowed mode and the second overview space is for displaying “in a stacked arrangement” a window for each application running in a full-screen mode.2 For reasons similar to above, even if “windows” with and without overlapping were well-known in the prior art, see Ans. 7, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not explain how the prior art renders obvious simultaneously showing both (1) a first overview window showing non-overlapped windows for applications running in a windowed mode and (2) a second overview window showing overlapped windows for application running in a full-screen mode. Appeal Br. 7–8. Again, the Examiner addresses only individual elements, not their combination as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 16, and their dependent claims 2–7, 11–13, and 17–19. OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 10–13, 16–19 103 Shin, Peng 1–7, 10–13, 16–193 REVERSED 2 Because neither Appellant nor the Examiner raises the issue, we make no holding with respect to whether the “when” clauses in method claim 1 constitute conditional method steps under Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential). 3 Because we reverse the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 16, the base claims for claims 8, 9, 14, 15, and 20, the Examiner’s objections to claims 8, 9, 14, 15, and 20 now are moot. See Final Act. 7.