Ex Parte Parker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 2014

11060607 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014)

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. 11/060,607 02/17/2005 Jason Michael Parker AUS920040843US1 2873 7590 01/24/2014 J. B. Kraft 710 Colorado Street #5C Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2172 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2014 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 JASON MICHAEL PARKER and HERMAN RODRIGUEZ __________ Appeal 2011-004694 Application 11/060,607 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD A. ADAMS, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a system for simplifying the user interactive display interface. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as International Business Machines Corporation (see App. Br. 2). Appeal 2011-004694 Application 11/060,607 2 Statement of the Case Background “The present invention relates to user interactive computer supported display technology and particularly to windows-type graphical user interfaces crowded with a variety of windows, often in stacks of overlapped windows” (Spec. 1, ll. 5-9). The Claims Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13, 14, and 22-25 are on appeal. Claim 8 is representative and reads as follows: 8. In a computer controlled interactive display operations comprising a stored hierarchy of windows that are displayable to form a displayed plurality of user interactive windows, a method for simplifying the user interactive display interface comprising: determining whether each of said plurality of windows is active; presetting an initial time period for which each of said plurality of windows may remain inactive; commencing a time-out period responsive to the end of said initial time period for each of said plurality of windows; displaying an indication of the progress of said time- out period towards termination for each of said windows by fading each of the windows toward total transparency during the time-out period for each window; closing each of said plurality of windows upon termination of its time-out period; and enabling the user to restore each of said plurality of windows to active during said time-out period. Appeal 2011-004694 Application 11/060,607 3 The Issue The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13, 14, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Maddalozzo2 and Chaudhri3 (Ans. 3-8). The Examiner finds that Maddalozzo teaches “a system for simplifying the user interactive display interface by determining whether each of the plurality of windows is active” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that “Maddalozzo discloses presetting an initial time period for which each of plurality of windows may remain inactive . . . A set time period is kept track of to determine if activity is occurring within a window” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that Maddalozzo discloses responsive to the end of the initial time period for each of the plurality of windows for commencing a time-out period for each of the plurality of windows (column 5, lines 10-16). The later stage of the time tracking period includes the commencing of a time-out period for the windows where this time period is fast approaching time-out for activity in the windows. Maddalozzo discloses displayed means for indicating the progress of time-out period towards termination for each of the windows (column 5, lines 10-16). Maddalozzo discloses user interactive means for restoring each of plurality of windows to active during the time-out period (column 6, lines 26-33). (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that “Chaudhri discloses displaying the progression of the time-out period towards termination for each of the window by fading the windows toward total transparency during the time- out period for each window . . . Chaudhri discloses means for each of the 2 Maddalozzo, Jr. et al., US 6,445,400 B1, issued Sep. 3, 2002. 3 Chaudhri et al., US 7,343,566 B1, issued Mar. 11, 2008. Appeal 2011-004694 Application 11/060,607 4 plurality of windows for closing upon termination of its time-out period” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds it obvious that “Chaudhri’s transparency to display an inactive window would allow the user of Maddalozzo to view any data that may otherwise have been hidden by the window without actually closing the inactive window. Furthermore, closing the window upon termination clearly ensures that data is not accessed without proper authorization” (Ans. 5). The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Maddalozzo and Chaudhri render claim 8 obvious? Findings of Fact 1. Maddalozzo teaches “[m]eans are provided for tracking for each of said plurality of windows a variable parameter relative to the window, in combination with means for displaying along at least a portion of the borders of each of the windows a color varying with said variable parameter being tracked for said window” (Maddalozzo, col. 1, l. 66 to col. 2, l. 4). 2. Maddalozzo teaches that “controlling the window stack hierarchies processed in accordance with the present invention and for providing the apparatus for tracking variable parameters relative to the windows, such as time, and for varying the color of window frames responsive to the variation of the parameter” (Maddalozzo, col. 3, ll. 1-6). 3. Maddalozzo teaches a method which “helps the user track the decay or timing out of access time to secured system data in said windows. As set forth above, the problems of tracking time decay or timeouts of Appeal 2011-004694 Application 11/060,607 5 secured access to databases is most prevalent with publicly accessible networks and particularly, the Internet or Web” (Maddalozzo, col. 4, ll. 25- 30). 4. Maddalozzo teaches that: a routine is set up for each window having secured data to set the appropriate time decay period, monitor the time passage for the window, to start with an initial color for the window frame and to change the color with time as the time period for each window expires. Finally, step 85, means must be provided for permitting the user to reaccess or refresh access to any secured database prior to the expiration of the time period. (Maddalozzo, col. 5, ll. 58-65). 5. Maddalozzo teaches that Now let us consider how the secured data window with the colored frame tracks the timeout or decay of access time. After a time increment passes, step 94, a determination is made, step 95, as to whether the time period for the window has completely decayed, i.e. expired. If Yes, then step 98, the data session in the window may be cutoff and the data no longer available to the user. If No, then decision step 96, a determination is made as to whether the user has reaccessed or refreshed his password. If No, the user has not as yet refreshed, then the color change increment in each of the timed access window frames is made to correspond with the actual time increment decay, step 97, and the process is returned to step 94 where the next time increment is passed while the process is continued as previously described. However, if the decision from step 96 is Yes, the user has reaccessed with his password, the process goes to step 99 where the color in the reaccessed window frame is also refreshed to its initial color to reflect this reaccess. (Maddalozzo, col. 6, ll. 25-42). Appeal 2011-004694 Application 11/060,607 6 6. Chaudhri teaches that “a window is closed automatically (e.g., after a timer expires . . . without user input” (Chaudhri, col. 2, ll. 25-28). 7. Chaudhri teaches that the In some examples, the image of the window is faded out before the window is closed and destroyed. In a further example, the level of translucency, the speed for fading out, the discrete levels of translucency for fading out, the time to expire, and/or other parameters for controlling the display of the window may be set by the user or adjusted by the system (or application software programs) automatically according to system conditions or other criteria. (Chaudhri, col. 2, ll. 30-38). Principles of Law “The 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). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. As noted by the Court in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. Analysis Maddalozzo teaches a computer controlled interactive display method with a plurality of user interactive windows (FF 1-2). Maddalozzo teaches a sequence of steps: where “a determination is made as to whether the user has reaccessed” the window by entering a password (Maddalozzo, col. 6, ll. 32-33; FF 5); Appeal 2011-004694 Application 11/060,607 7 presetting an initial time period where “a routine is set up for each window having secured data to set the appropriate time decay period” (Maddalozzo, col. 5, ll. 58-60; FF 4); commencing a time out period to “monitor the time passage for the window” (Maddalozzo, col. 5, l. 60; FF 4); displaying an indication of progress “to start with an initial color for the window frame and to change the color with time as the time period for each window expires” (Maddalozzo, col. 5, ll. 60-63; FF 4); and enabling the user to restore the window where when “the user has reaccessed with his password, the process goes to step 99 where the color in the reaccessed window frame is also refreshed to its initial color to reflect this reaccess” (Maddalozzo, col. 6, ll. 39-42; FF 5). The Examiner acknowledges that Maddalozzo “does not clearly disclose fading each of the windows toward total transparency” and Maddalozzo “does not disclose means for each of the plurality of windows for closing upon termination of its time-out period” (Ans. 4-5). Chaudhri teaches that “a window is closed automatically (e.g., after a timer expires . . . without user input” (Chaudhri, col. 2, ll. 25-28; FF 6). Chaudhri teaches that the “the image of the window is faded out before the window is closed . . . the level of translucency . . . the discrete levels of translucency for fading out . . . and/or other parameters for controlling the display of the window may be set by the user” (Chaudhri, col. 2, ll. 30-35; FF 7). Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinary artisan would have reasonably found it obvious to modify the color changing of Maddalozzo with the Appeal 2011-004694 Application 11/060,607 8 increasing translucency taught by Chaudhri since “using transparency to display an inactive window would allow the user of Maddalozzo to view any data that may otherwise have been hidden by the window without actually closing the inactive window” (Ans. 5). We further agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to incorporate the window closing of Chaudhri into Maddalozzo since “closing the window upon termination clearly ensures that data is not accessed without proper authorization” (Ans. 5). Such combinations are merely the “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Appellants contend that “Maddalozzo does not determine whether or not any window is inactive or active” (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend that “Maddalozzo does not disclose presetting an initial time period for which each of said plurality of windows may remain inactive or then determining whether each of the plurality of windows is active” (App. Br. 11). We are not persuaded. Maddalozzo teaches that after determining that the preset time period has not expired (FF 5), that “a determination is made as to whether the user has reaccessed” the window by entering a password (Maddalozzo, col. 6, ll. 32-33; FF 5). This determination of whether reaccess has occurred is reasonably interpreted as determining whether the window has been actively accessed by the user or not, which satisfies the requirement of claim 8 to determine if a window is active. Appellants specifically contend that in Maddalozzo, the “time decay period is a fixed period occurring at the end of each designated period irrespective of the extent of activity in the window” (Reply Br. 2). We are not persuaded. Maddalozzo teaches that if “the user has reaccessed with his password, the process goes to step 99 where the color in Appeal 2011-004694 Application 11/060,607 9 the reaccessed window frame is also refreshed to its initial color to reflect this reaccess” (Maddalozzo, col. 6, ll. 39-42; FF 5). Thus, activity by the user controls whether the time decay period refreshes or not, just as required by claim 8. The activity required in Maddalozzo is reaccess with a password, but claim 8 incorporates no limitation which excludes Maddalozzo’s reaccess with a password as a type of activity within a window. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Appellants contend that “Maddalozzo does not disclose fading each of said windows toward total transparency during the time-out period for each window” (App. Br. 11). While we agree that Maddalozzo does not teach fading windows to translucency as required by claim 8, the Examiner does not rely upon Maddalozzo for this teaching. Indeed, while Maddalozzo does teach changing color over time as the time period for window activity expires (FF 4-5), the Examiner relies upon Chaudhri to teach windows fading to translucency after a set time period (FF 6-7). Thus, Appellants’ argument fails to address the combination of references. Appellants contend that “one skilled in the art would be led away from considering substituting the intrusive window fade-out of Chaudhri for the unintrusive visual indicators of Maddalozzo because Maddalozzo intends the windows to be operative in situations where the authorized user is interacting with an active window during the time-out” (App. Br. 13). We are not persuaded. A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. Appeal 2011-004694 Application 11/060,607 10 See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Appellants do not identify, and we do not find, any teaching in Maddalozzo which criticizes or discourages the use of increased translucency rather than color changes to identify windows which are subject to deactivation. Conclusion of Law The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Maddalozzo and Chaudhri render claim 8 obvious. SUMMARY In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Maddalozzo and Chaudhri. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 22-25, as these claims were not argued separately. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED lp