Ex Parte Ellis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

13169930 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/169,930 06/27/2011
46320 7590 05/05/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Ellis
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.
RSW920110043US1 (717) 2795
EXAMINER
HARRIS, DOROTHY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD ELLIS and CLARE OWENS
Appeal2014-005001
Application 13/169,930
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JOHN F. HORVATH, and MICHAEL M.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005001
Application 13/169,930
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-12, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method of configuring a display as a primary display in a
multi-display computing environment, the method comprising:
setting a display in a multi-display computing environment as a
primary display in which applications are initially displayed when launched
and setting other displays of the multi-display computing environment as
secondary displays;
tracking eye movements of an end user interacting with the multi-
display computing environment;
identifying based upon the eye movements, a display amongst the
secondary displays principally viewed by the end user; and,
configuring the primary display as a secondary display and
configuring the identified display as the primary display in response to
determining that the end user has viewed the identified display for a
threshold period of time.
Nielsen
Nickerson
Mehra
Prior Art
US 6,437,758 Bl
US 6,526, 159 B 1
US 2012/0218398 Al
Examiner's Rejections
Aug.20,2002
Feb.25,2003
Aug.30,2012
Claims 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nickerson, Nielsen, and Mehra.
2
Appeal2014-005001
Application 13/169,930
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Section 1 OJ rejection of claims 9-12
The Examiner finds the scope of the "computer readable storage
medium" recited in claim 9 encompasses transitory propagating signals.
Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds the claimed computer
readable storage medium, when read in light of paragraph 23 of Appellants'
Specification, encompasses an electrical connection having one or more
wires. Ans. 2. The Examiner further finds claim 9 may be amended to
cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory"
to the claim. Final Act. 6.
Appellants contend paragraph 23 of Appellants' Specification defines
the computer readable storage medium as any tangible medium. Appellants
also contend paragraph 24 distinguishes a signal medium from the storage
medium of paragraph 23. Reply Br. 3-4. However, Appellants' contentions
do not persuasively address the Examiner's finding that a storage medium
that can be an electrical connection having one or more wires as disclosed in
paragraph 23 encompasses non-statutory subject matter.
We sustain the rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
3
Appeal2014-005001
Application 13/169,930
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-12
Appellants contend the active mode of Nickerson is different than the
"primary display" recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants also
contend launching applications where the user is looking as taught by Mehra
is different from configuring a display among multiple displays as the
primary display in which applications are initially displayed when launched
within the meaning of claim 1. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7-8.
Nickerson teaches setting the screen the user is looking at is the active
screen (col. 4, 11. 19-29), and Mehra teaches launching applications based on
where the user is looking (i-f 2). Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence or argument to distinguish "configuring the identified display as
the primary display" in which "applications are initially displayed when
launched" as recited in claim 1 from setting the screen the user is looking at
as the active screen and launching applications on the screen the user is
looking at as taught by the combination of Nickerson and Mehra.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-12 are 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(±).
AFFIRMED
4