Ex Parte Bennah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 15, 2013

11538231 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2013)

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. 11/538,231 10/03/2006 Albert D. Bennah RPS920060128US1 (058) 1665 50594 7590 04/16/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/16/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALBERT D. BENNAH and WILLIAM G. PAGAN ____________ Appeal 2010-008415 Application 11/538,231 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008415 Application 11/538,231 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 3-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. A method for graphically associating a window with a task bar entry in a windowing operating system graphical user interface, the method comprising: rendering a plurality of windows in a z-space sequence in a desktop of the windowing operating system graphical user interface; detecting a proximity event for an entry in a task bar for the windowing operating system graphical user interface, wherein the proximity event is a mouse-over event for an entry in the task bar for the windowing operating system graphical user interface; and, responsive to detecting the proximity event, highlighting a corresponding one of the windows in the desktop without re-ordering the z- space sequence. Prior Art Gelsinger US 5,892,511 Apr. 6, 1999 Lindsay US 2006/0224986 A1 Oct. 5, 2006 Schechter US 2006/0242602 A1 Oct. 26, 2006 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindsay and Gelsinger. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindsay, Gelsinger, and Schechter. Appeal 2010-008415 Application 11/538,231 3 ANALYSIS Section 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3 Claim 1 recites “responsive to detecting [a mouse-over event], highlighting a corresponding one of the windows in the desktop without re- ordering the z-space sequence.” The Examiner finds that Lindsay teaches highlighting a corresponding one of the windows in the desktop without re- ordering the z-space sequence, and Gelsinger teaches, responsive to detecting a mouse-over event, highlighting a corresponding one of the windows. Ans. 9. Appellants contend that Lindsay alone and Gelsinger alone do not teach highlighting a window corresponding to a mouse-over event without re-ordering the z-space sequence. App. Br. 9-12. The Examiner finds that in response to Appellants’ arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer. Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would not have combined the teachings of Lindsay and Gelsinger in the manner claimed. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3-10. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show that highlighting a window responsive to detecting a mouse-over event as taught by Gelsinger without re-ordering the z-space sequence as taught by Lindsay was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). Appeal 2010-008415 Application 11/538,231 4 We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 3, which falls with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claim 4 Claim 4 recites “wherein highlighting . . . comprises rendering a phantom copy of the corresponding one of the windows in a foreground position in the z-space sequence and in an x-y space position of the desktop comparable to an x-y space position of the corresponding one of the windows.” The Examiner interprets the scope of “rendering a phantom copy of the corresponding one of the windows in a foreground position” as encompassing the translucent window rendered in the foreground position shown in Figure 8 of Gelsinger. Ans. 11-12. The Examiner finds that the combination of Lindsay and Gelsinger teaches “wherein highlighting . . . comprises rendering a phantom copy of the corresponding one of the windows in a foreground position in the z-space sequence and in an x-y space position of the desktop comparable to an x-y space position of the corresponding one of the windows.” Ans. 12. Appellants contend that Gelsinger does not teach rendering a particular window in a foreground position. App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 10-13. Appellants have not provided a definition of “phantom copy” that excludes the translucent window taught by Gelsinger. Further, Appellants’ contention that Gelsinger does not teach rendering a translucent window in a foreground position is inconsistent with the teachings of Gelsinger. See Gelsinger, Abstract; Fig. 7, element 710; Fig. 8; Fig. 9, element 915; col. 2, ll. 63-66; col. 3, ll. 1-4; col. 6, ll. 28-30; col. 10, ll. 15-18. We agree with the Appeal 2010-008415 Application 11/538,231 5 Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claim 6 Claim 6 recites “rendering a phantom copy of the corresponding one of the windows in a minimized state in a foreground position in the z-space sequence and in an x-y space position of the desktop comparable to an x-y space position of the corresponding one of the windows when in a normalized state; and, highlighting the task bar.” Appellants contend that Figure 8 of Gelsinger and its accompanying description does not teach rendering a phantom copy of a corresponding window in a foreground position. App. Br. 15-16. We find this argument unpersuasive for the reasons given in our analysis of claim 4. Appellants contend that the combination of Lindsay and Gelsinger does not teach the phantom copy positioned in an x-y space position of the desktop comparable to an x-y position of the corresponding one of the windows when in a normalized state. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 13. The Examiner finds that Gelsinger teaches the translucent, or phantom copy, positioned in an x-y space position of the window in a normalized state. See Ans. 7, 13. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer. Further, Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with column 9, lines 56-60, of Gelsinger. We sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2010-008415 Application 11/538,231 6 Section 103 rejection of claim 5 Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claim 5 similar to those presented for claim 1, which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindsay and Gelsinger are affirmed. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindsay, Gelsinger, and Schechter is affirmed. 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED babc