Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 2018

13493194 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2018)

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. 13/493,194 06/11/2012 Yung Kwan KIM 0203-0711 6338 03/09/201868103 7590 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER AKHAVANNIK, MOHAMMAD H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2018 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): u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUNG KWAN KIM, YONG JIN KWON, JAE SOOK JOO, TAI SOO PARK, HYEON JI, JEONG AH PARK, and JUNG SIK SUNG Appeal 2016-008196 Application 13/493,194 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-008196 Application 13/493,194 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to: a system and method that allows a mobile device with a limited amount of resources to execute applications using a relatively small amount of resources in a light-weight mode (mini mode) and a full-function mode (full mode) during a multitasking mode, and to support an efficient use of a screen. (Spec. 12). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for executing multiple tasks in a mobile device, the method comprising: detecting, by the mobile device, a first execution event for executing a first application; identifying a type of the first execution event; executing the first application in one of a full mode and a mini mode according to the type of the first execution event; displaying an execution screen of the first application executed in the one of the full mode and the mini mode; after the displaying of the execution screen of the first application executed in the one of the full mode and the mini mode, subsequently detecting a second execution event for executing a second application represented by one of items included in a displayed tray, each of the items representing an application to be executed in one of the full mode and the mini mode; executing the second application in another of the full mode and the mini mode in response to the detected second execution event; and displaying an execution screen of the second application executed in the other of the full mode and the mini mode along with the displayed execution screen of the first application executed in the one of the full mode and the mini mode. 2 Appeal 2016-008196 Application 13/493,194 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Jung (US 2011/0244924 Al; Oct. 6, 2011). The Examiner rejected claims 2—13, 16, 18—21, and 23—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Jung. The Examiner rejected claims 14, 15, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Jung and Tanaka (US 2012/0185796 Al; July 19, 2012). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds independent claims 1 and 17 anticipated by Jung (Final Act. 3 4). Particularly, the Examiner finds Jung discloses “after the displaying of the execution screen of the first application executed in the one of the full mode and the mini mode, subsequently detecting a second execution event for executing a second application represented by one of items included in a displayed tray” and executing the second application in response to the detected second execution event (Final Act. 4; Jung Fig. 12 and 185—190). The Examiner asserts “Appellant seemingly believes that the claim language requires that the second application must not have had any execution take place prior to the detected second execution event” (Ans. 2). That is, Jung’s paragraph 176 discloses a multitasking list having a plurality of applications including background applications (not activated or displayed) and activated applications. Thus, the Examiner reasons, “[t]he mere fact that an application has been previously executed and is in the background does not preclude the application from being further executed by being newly displayed” (Ans. 3). We do not agree. 3 Appeal 2016-008196 Application 13/493,194 Appellants contend, and we agree, Jung’s multitasking list “merely discloses a list of applications that have already been executed” (Jung 1176) (emphasis added) and not “items included in a display tray, each of the items representing an application to be executed,” as claimed (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2 “Jung expressly describes that the applications illustrated m the multitasking list in FIGS. 12A to 12E are currently being executed.”). Further, we agree that “a subsequently selected or activated application that is currently executing for display on a screen” as Jung teaches, is not the same as the contested claim limitations (App. Br. 8). Therefore, Jung does not disclose ‘“subsequently detecting a second execution event for executing a second application represented by one of items included in a displayed tray, each of the items representing an application to be executed, ’ as recited in claim 1” (emphasis added) (Reply Br. 2.). We conclude the Examiner erred in finding independent claims 1 and 17 anticipated by Jung, in addition to dependent claims 2—16, 18—23, and 26. With respect to independent claims 24 and 25, these claims were rejected by the Examiner as obvious for the same reasons as claims 1 and 17 (Final Act. 9), with no additional argument or reasoning. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 24 and 25, which include similar limitations as argued above. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 17 as anticipated by Jung is reversed. 4 Appeal 2016-008196 Application 13/493,194 The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2—16, 18—23, and 26 as obvious over Jung and/or Jung and Tanaka is reversed. REVERSED 5