Ex Parte Gyde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2013

11689863 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte MIKE G. GYDE and MICHAEL J. STEWART1
____________

Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11-16, and 18-20. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Honeywell International,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification is directed to ways for changing where and how
various functions are displayed in non-overlapping display regions on a
display. Specifically, the Specification shows ways to reposition and/or
resize a display area in which a chosen function is displayed. See
Specification at 3-17.
Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are on appeal, and are set forth in
an amendment to the appeal brief. Claims 1, 8, and 15, the independent
claims, are illustrative and read as follows:
1. A method for changing the appearance of a display screen, the
display screen including a plurality of possible non-overlapping display
regions, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a first input that identifies a first function of a plurality of
functions that can be displayed on the display screen;
receiving a second input that identifies a first display region of the
plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, wherein a perimeter of
each of the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions consists of
four corners of substantially ninety degrees;
displaying at least a portion of the first function in the first display
region and a second portion of the first function in a second display region
of the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions in response to
receiving the first input and receiving the second input by expanding the first
function such that the first display region defines a boundary of the first
function between a first corner of the first function that coincides with a
corner of the first non-overlapping display region and a second corner of the
first function that coincides with a corner of the second non-overlapping
display region that is diagonally opposed from the corner of the first non-
overlapping display region,
whereby the first function is displayed as a single rendering across all
intervening non-overlapping display regions situated in a row or column
between the first non-overlapping display region and the second non-
overlapping display region; and
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

3
expanding or contracting the single rendering of the first function into
one or more display regions of the plurality of possible display regions by
receiving another first input that identifies the first function and receiving
another second input that identifies a third display region of the plurality of
possible display regions.

8. A system for displaying functions, the system comprising:
a display screen having a plurality of possible non-overlapping
display regions, wherein a perimeter of each of the plurality of possible non-
overlapping display regions consists of four corners of substantially ninety
degrees;
a user interface; and
a processor that is coupled to the display screen and to the user
interface, the processor operable to:
control the display screen such that a first function is generated
in at least a first display region of the plurality of possible non-overlapping
display regions,
receive a first signal generated by the user interface, the first
signal indicative of a second function,
receive a second signal generated by the user interface, the
second signal indicative of the first display region,
control the display screen such that the second function is
generated in a first group of adjacent display regions that are selected from
the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, the first group of
adjacent display regions including the first display region, a perimeter of the
first group of adjacent display regions having the same number of corners as
the first display region; and
control the display screen such that the first function is
displayed in a second group of adjacent display regions that are selected
from the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions, the second
group of adjacent display regions including a second display region that
abuts the first group of adjacent display regions.

15. A processor-readable storage medium that, when read by one or
more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform steps that
comprise:
processing a first input that is indicative of a first display region of a
display screen that includes a plurality of possible non-overlapping display
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

4
regions that are arranged on the display screen, wherein a perimeter of each
of the plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions consists of four
corners of substantially ninety degrees;
processing a second input that is indicative of a first function of a
plurality of functions that can be displayed on the display screen; and
based at least upon the processing of the first input and the second
input:
selecting a first group of display regions from the plurality of possible
non-overlapping display regions, the first group of display regions including
the first display region, a perimeter of the first group of display regions and
all other groups of display regions having the same number of corners as the
first display region;
controlling the display screen such that the first function is displayed
in the first group of display regions;
controlling the display screen such that a second function is displayed
in a second group of display regions, the second group of display regions
including the first display region and a third display region, a perimeter of
the second group of display regions and all other groups of display regions
having the same number of corners as the first display region.

The Examiner has rejected the claims as follows:
I. Claims 8-9 and 11-13, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Smith,2 Answer 5;
II. Claims 1, 6, 14-16, and 18-20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith in view of Cohn,3 Answer 7;
III. Claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite for insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation
“the third group” in each of these claims, Answer 4.

2 Matthew T. Smith, et al., 6,466,235 B1, issued on Oct. 15, 2002.
3 Robert M. Cohn, 5,712,995, issued on Jan. 27, 1998.
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

5
I. Anticipation of Claims 8-9 and 11-13 by Smith
The Examiner finds that Smith teaches all the limitations of claims 8-
9 and 11-13. Answer 5-7. Appellants agree with this assessment except as
to the following limitations that are found in independent claim 8 from
which claims 9 and 11-13 depend:
a display screen having a plurality of possible non-
overlapping display regions, wherein a perimeter of each of the
plurality of possible non-overlapping display regions consists
of four corners of substantially ninety degrees;
. . .
a processor that is coupled to the display screen and to
the user interface, the processor operable to:
. . .
control the display screen such that the second
function is generated in a first group of adjacent display regions
that are selected from the plurality of possible non-overlapping
display regions, the first group of adjacent display regions
including the first display region, a perimeter of the first group
of adjacent display regions having the same number of corners
as the first display region;
. . . .

Appeal Brief 10-12 (emphasis added).
With regard to these limitations, the Examiner finds that Smith
teaches that the perimeter for each of the possible non-overlapping display
regions consists of four corners of substantially ninety degrees. Answer 5.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that:
The display consists of four quadrants of “possible” regions for
displaying functions. The map display is simply a default
background for when the possible regions are not occupied by a
function. The pilot must change the display if add’l functions
are desired to be displayed. The art teaches changing the
display in the right quadrants as an example of how to display
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

6
add’l functions. Each “possible” quadrant consists of four
ninety degree corners . . . .

Answer 5 (citing Fig. 5; col. 3, ll. 51-63; col. 5, ll. 51-58) (emphasis in
original).
Appellants argue that claim 8 requires “all of the possible display
regions to have exactly four corners of substantially 90 degrees; as opposed,
for example to a reference describing a possible display region that may
have six corners of substantially 90 degrees.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis in
original). From this premise, Appellants argue that a reference that
describes any “possible” grouping of display regions with a perimeter that
does not have four corners of substantially 90 degrees “does not anticipate
independent claim 8 because the reference fails to describe every element of
the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claim.” Id. (emphasis
in original). Appellants conclude that Figure 2 in Smith shows a moving
map in three of the four display regions with a perimeter of six corners, not
four. Id.
The issue presented regarding the anticipation rejection is: Does the
preponderance of evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion of
anticipation?
A. Findings of Fact
1. Smith teaches a display divided into four, fixed-sized,
non-overlapping, equal quadrants. Smith, col. 3, ll. 3-6; col. 5, ll. 51-53;
Fig. 5; Answer 5, 1
2. Smith teaches that the perimeter of each of the four,
fixed-sized, non-overlapping, equal quadrants or the perimeter of any two
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

7
such adjacent quadrants consists of four corners of substantially ninety
degrees. Smith, col. 3, ll. 3-6; Fig. 5; Answer 5, 10.
3. Smith teaches that the electronic moving map is the
default background display function shown generally when no function is
selected for a display quadrant. Smith, col. 3, ll. 59-61; Figs. 2-10; Answer
5, 10.
B. Analysis
To find a claim anticipated by a prior art reference, every element of
the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference
arranged as in the claim at issue. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). This test to determine anticipation, however, is not an ipsissimis
verbis test requiring identity of terminology in the claim at issue and the
teachings of the prior art. In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832; Akzo N.V. v. U.S.
Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants argue that claim 8 requires that the perimeter of each
“possible” non-overlapping display region “consists of four corners of
substantially 90 degrees.” Appeal Br. 11. Because the term of art
“consists of” is used in the claim at issue, Appellants assert that an
anticipating reference may not teach a “possible” non-overlapping display
region that has more or less than four corners of substantially ninety degrees.
Id. Appellants contend that because Smith shows the electronic moving map
in three of the four display quadrants as shown in Figure 2 that defines a
display area with six corners instead of four, Smith does not anticipate
“independent claim 8 because the reference fails to describe every element
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

8
of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claim.” Id.
(emphasis in original).
Appellants do not appear to disagree with the Examiner that Smith
teaches a display that is divided into four, fixed-sized, non-overlapping,
equal quadrants that each consists of four corners of substantially ninety
degrees as shown in Figure 5; Appellants argue that the teachings of Smith
may not include any configuration where a display area would have more
than four corners of substantially ninety degrees. See id. The fact that
Smith also teaches that any quadrant of the display that is not selected to
show a particular function may show the electronic moving map does not
render Smith any less anticipatory. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., an
analogous case, shows why Appellants’ arguments and ultimate conclusion
as to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection are flawed.
In Upsher-Smith Laboratories, the claimed invention involved a
vitamin composition that is “‘essentially free of antioxidants.’” Upsher-
Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C., 412 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The anticipatory prior art taught compositions both with and without
antioxidants. Id. at 1322. The patent owner argued that because the
reference “optionally includes antioxidants the district court erred in finding
that it anticipates a limitation that expressly excludes antioxidants.” Id. The
Federal Circuit applied the “century-old axiom of patent law [which] holds
that a product ‘which would literally infringe if later in time anticipates if
earlier.’” Id. (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue
Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); Peters v. Active Mfg.
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

9
Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889) (“That which infringes, if later, would
anticipate, if earlier.”)). The Federal Circuit concluded that because a
composition made according to the reference without antioxidants would
infringe the claims at issue, those compositions anticipated the claims
“despite no express teaching to exclude the antioxidants” in the reference.
Upsher-Smith, 412 F.3d at 1323.
A display screen made in accordance with Figure 5 and its description
in Smith would meet the limitations at issue of claim 8, including the
limitations that “a perimeter of each of the plurality of possible non-
overlapping display regions consists of four corners of substantially ninety
degrees” and “a perimeter of the first group of adjacent display regions
having the same number of corners as the first display region.”4 The fact
that Smith teaches a default electronic map that may be displayed in a
quadrant that is not displaying another function does not render Smith any
less anticipatory.
Because the preponderance of evidence of record supports the
Examiner’s conclusion of anticipation, we affirm the rejection of claim 8.
As Appellants do not argue the claims separately, claims 9 and 11-13 fall
with claim 8. 37 C.F.R. 4.37(c)(1)(vii).

4 Because Appellants did not assert that the remaining limitations in claim 8
were not met by the teachings of Smith as found by the Examiner, these
limitations of claim 8 will not be separately addressed.
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

10
II. Obviousness of Claims 1, 6, 14-16, and 18-20 over Smith and Cohn5
A. Obviousness of Claims 1 and 6
The Examiner recognizes that while Smith teaches a third display
region as shown as upper and lower left hand quadrants in Figure 5, “Smith
does not teach expanding or contracting the first function to a third display
region.” Answer 9. The limitation of claim 1 that the Examiner concedes is
not taught by Smith is as follows:
1. A method for changing the appearance of a display
screen, the display screen including a plurality of possible non-
overlapping display regions, the method comprising the steps
of:
. . .
expanding or contracting the single rendering of the first
function into one or more display regions of the plurality of
possible display regions by receiving another first input that
identifies the first function and receiving another second input
that identifies a third display region of the plurality of possible
display regions.

Claims Appendix to Appeal Brief 1-2 (emphasis added).

The Examiner finds that Cohn does teach such a method.
Cohn teaches a method of displaying applications in multiple
regions which may be expanded or contracted into one or more
display regions of the plurality of possible display regions by
receiving another first input that identifies the first function and
receiving another second input that identifies a third display
region of the plurality of possible display regions. (Cohn, Fig.

5 The Examiner rejected claim 14 as being obvious over Smith in view of
Cohn. Answer 10. Appellants do not address the obviousness rejection;
therefore, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 14.

Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

11
7A-F, col. 11, line 57 – col. 12, line 3; col. 35, line[s] 4-7; user
may select an application and then create regions where the
application will occupy; Fig.20A-B; col. 24, lines 47-54;
numerous display regions [are] possible to expand or contract
[a] selected function. Function is selected via selection of
function boundary and expanded/contracted via movement of
boundary to the identified desired region. A region is any area
within the display area where the boundary can be moved to).

Answer 9. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious “to
include Cohn’s display of a function occupying a third region with Smith’s
method in order to adjust size and location of functions with minimum input
from the user.” Answer 9 (citing Cohn, col. 8, l. 59 – col. 9, l. 3).
Appellants argue, however, that Cohn teaches away from claim 1
because “Cohn describes that an ‘application’ cannot be rendered into
more than one ‘pane.’” Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis in original).6 Appellants
assert that Cohn correlates application regions to the display regions defined
by the panes in which the application regions are “contained.” Id. at 14.
From this understanding of Cohn, Appellants conclude that it is “quite clear
that the ‘panes’ in Cohn are the ‘display regions’” and “each application (i.e.
a function) can occupy only a single ‘pane’/’display area’ and cannot be
expanded into another ‘pane’ nor contracted from another ‘pane.’” Id.
Therefore, Appellants argue, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, Cohn
does not teach that any area within the display area where a pane’s boundary
may be moved is a “display area.” See Reply Br. 3.

6 Appellants also argue that Cohn fails to cure the deficiencies in Smith.
Appeal Br. 14-15. For the reasons discussed above with respect to the
rejection based on Smith, Appellants have not demonstrated such a
deficiency in Smith.
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

12
Finally, Appellants argue that no motivation exists to combine the
teachings of Smith and Cohn because such a combination would require one
reference to be rendered unfit for its intended purpose. Id. (citing In re Ratti,
270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959)). Specifically, Appellants assert that
“[c]ombining these references would require Smith to be redesigned to limit
a displayed function to a single quadrant, or would require Cohn to be
redesigned to display a function/application across two panes.” Id.
The issue presented is: Does the preponderance of evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness, and if so, have
Appellants provided sufficient rebuttal evidence to overcome the
combination of Smith and Cohn?
A. Findings of Fact
4. Cohn teaches a user interface in which multiple, non-
overlapping panes are separated by partitions, which are individually
moveable so as to effect resizing or movement of abutting panes. Cohn, col.
8, ll. 45-48; Figs. 7A-7F and Cohn, col. 11, l. 51-col. 12, l. 3 (teaching ways
to construct a four-quadrant display with partitions).
5. Cohn teaches that a user may select an application and
create a pane with which the pre-selected application will be associated.
Cohn, col. 35, ll. 4-7.
6. Cohn teaches that numerous non-overlapping display
regions are possible for expanding or contracting a selected function. See
Cohn, Figs. 20A-B; col. 24, ll. 47-54 (explaining how display region 851 is
expanded and display region 852 is contracted by moving a segment
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

13
partition 804); Fig. 20D; Cohn, col. 30, ll. 43-67 (area of expansion from
Fig. 20A to 20B defined as display region 853).
B. Analysis
Pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). A reference teaches all that would have reasonably been
suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft
Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see also In re Heck, 699
F.2d 1331, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Also, “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
When evaluating whether claimed subject matter is obvious, the
inquiry is not limited to the particular motivation or avowed purpose of the
patentee, but encompasses the objective reach of the claim. Id. at 419.
“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420.
Appellants’ argument that Cohn does not teach expanding or
contracting a first function into a third display region depends on Appellants
equating the term “pane” as used in Cohn with “display region” as used by
Appellants in the claim at issue. This interpretation, however, does not
afford claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
Specification.
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

14
A display region as described by Appellants is simply an area on a
display where all of or part of a function may be shown. See Spec. 4-5 ¶
[0020] (describing a default layout 200 that has a four-by-four grid of
sixteen distinct display regions of the display screen where each one of the
display regions is used to display one of sixteen functions); id. at 5 ¶ [0023]
(describing a default layout 300 wherein function 101 is displayed over eight
display regions and introducing the concept that a “function is displayed in a
single area that is equal to the sum of the areas of the adjacent display
regions”). Appellants would have us limit the definition of “display region”
to an area on a display that necessarily shows all of a particular function.
Such a construction would be an inappropriate narrowing of the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Giving the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation, Cohn
teaches
expanding or contracting the single rendering of the first
function into one or more display regions of the plurality of
possible display regions by receiving another first input that
identifies the first function and receiving another second input
that identifies a third display region of the plurality of possible
display regions.

Claim 1.

As the Examiner explained, Cohn’s Figures 20A-B and the
accompanying discussion of those figures teach the expansion of a function
that is shown in display region 851 into part of the display region 852 as
shown by the movement of segment partition 805 as shown by tracking
partition 841 that becomes unitary whole partition 812 as shown in Figure
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

15
20B. Cohn, col. 24, l. 47 – col. 25, l. 29. The Examiner is correct in
identifying the area between segment partition 805 and tracking partition
841 as “a third display region” into which the function shown in display area
851 is expanded in the steps shown in Cohn’s Figures 20A and 20B. The
Examiner is also correct to conclude that it would have been obvious to
include Cohn’s display of a function occupying a third region in Smith’s
method in order to adjust the size and location of functions with minimum
input from the user.
The fact that Cohn teaches that a “pane,” however it is expanded or
contracted, contains a single function is irrelevant. The meaning of “pane”
as used in Cohn is not coextensive with the meaning of “display region” as
used in the claim.
Equally unavailing is Appellants’ argument that there is no motivation
to combine Smith and Cohn because modifying Smith in view of Cohn
would require a fundamental redesign in the operating principle of Smith.
Appellants assert that “[i]n Cohn, a function exists in, and is limited by, the
partitions of a single defined pane. In Smith, a displayed function is
expandable to exist in two adjacent and defined viewing quadrants.” Reply
Br. 3 (citations omitted; emphasis in original). Therefore, Appellants
conclude, to combine the teachings of Smith with Cohn would require the
“operating principle” of either Cohn or Smith to be redesigned.
First, the holding of In re Ratti, upon which Appellants rely, must be
refined in light of KSR. We have held when reviewing In re Ratti in light of
KSR that “[r]ather than express obviousness as the physical placement of
structure from one reference within the confines of the structure from
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

16
another reference, the Supreme Court viewed the prior art as a combination
of teachings from different sources, and the use of those teachings by a
practitioner in the art.” Ex parte Purcell et al., No. 2008-004765, 2009 WL
1717401 * 4 (BPAI 2009).
Appellants’ reading of the teachings of the references is too
restrictive. While Smith teaches a four quadrant display, as Appellants
recognize, it also describes using more than one quadrant to display a
function. Answer 6 (citing Smith, col. 4, l. 67 – col. 5, l. 4). By the same
token, Cohn describes numerous non-overlapping display regions are
possible for expanding or contracting a selected function. See Cohn, Figs.
20A-B; col. 24, l. 47 – col. 25, l. 11 (explaining how display region 851 is
expanded and display region 852 is contracted by moving a segment
partition 805); Fig. 20D; Cohn, col. 30, l. 53 – col. 31, l. 17 (area of
expansion from Fig. 20A to 20B defined as display region 853). The
teachings of these two references are not mutually exclusive, but as the
Examiner finds, can be combined to render the claims at issue obvious.
The Examiner has set forth a prima facie case for obviousness, which
Appellants have failed to rebut. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. As Appellants do not argue the claims separately, claim
6 falls with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. 4.37(c)(1)(vii).
B. Obviousness of Claims 15, 16, and 18-20
The Examiner finds that Smith teaches all of the limitations of
independent claim 15 except “Smith does not teach the medium wherein the
second group of display regions includes the first display region and a third
display region.” Answer 11. The Examiner finds that this limitation is
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

17
taught by Cohn. The limitation of claim 15 that the Examiner concedes is
not taught by Smith is as follows:
15. A processor-readable storage medium that, when
read by one or more processors, causes the one or more
processors to perform steps that comprise:
. . .
controlling the display screen such that a second function
is displayed in a second group of display regions, the second
group of display regions including the first display region and a
third display region . . . .

Claims Appendix to Appeal Brief 4-5.
The Examiner finds that:
Cohn teaches a method of displaying applications in multiple
regions which may be expanded into one or more display
regions of the plurality of possible display regions. (Cohn, Fig.
20A-B; col. 24, ll. 47-54; numerous display regions possible to
expand or contract [a] selected function. Second group of
display regions 851 includes third display region 851 and first
display region between 805 and 841 of Fig. 20A and first group
of display regions 852 also includes first display region
between 805 and 841. When second function is selected via
selection of function boundary 805 and expanded via
movement of boundary to the identified desired region 841 the
second function now includes the third display region and first
display region. A region is any area within the display area
where the boundary can be moved to).

Answer 11-12 (emphasis added). The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to include Cohn’s teaching with Smith’s medium in order to adjust
size and location of functions with minimum input from the user (Cohn, col.
8, line 59 – col. 9, line 3).” Id.
Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

18
Appellants assert the same argument discussed above with respect to
claim 1 as to why Cohn does not teach the limitation at issue. Appellants
again equate the “panes” taught by Cohn with the “display regions” as the
term is used in the claims at issue. Appeal Br. 16. While Appellants
concede that Cohn teaches that a pane may be made larger or smaller along
with its contained application, with appropriate adjustments to adjacent
panes to accommodate the different size, Appellants argue that an
application in Cohn “cannot be rendered over multiple ‘panes’ (i.e. display
regions),” as required by the limitation in claim 15 at issue. Id. at 17.
Appellants conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
established. Id.
We have addressed these arguments as set forth above and found them
unpersuasive. The Examiner has set forth a prima facie case for
obviousness, which Appellants have failed to rebut. Therefore, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. As Appellants do not argue the claims
separately, claims 16 and 18-20 fall with claim 15. 37 C.F.R.
4.37(c)(1)(vii).
III. Indefiniteness Rejection of claims 18-20
The Examiner rejects claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention
because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the third
group.” Answer 4. Because Appellants do not address this rejection, we
summarily affirm it.

Appeal 2011-008988
Application 11/689,863

19
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 8-9 and 11-13, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 6, 14-16, and 18-20, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Cohn.
We affirm the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite for insufficient antecedent basis for the
limitation “the third group” in each of these claims.

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

cdc