Ex Parte Alstad

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

12426909 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
12/426,909 04/20/2009 Kent Alstad RADW P0080 5913
122066 7590
M&B IP Analysts, LLC
500 Headquarters Plaza
Morristown, NJ 07960-7070
12/23/2016 EXAMINER
JAKOVAC, RYAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 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):
pair@mb-ip.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENT ALSTAD
Appeal 2016-001059
Application 12/426,909
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—13, 15—32, 34—51, and 53—58.
Claims 14, 33, and 52 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to optimizing messaging
systems. Spec 12. Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for optimizing a
messaging system for communicating between at least one
server and at least one client, comprising:
Appeal 2016-001059
Application 12/426,909
in a computing device, establishing a threshold
representing an amount of data collection to generate at least
one optimization instruction set;
in a computing device, intercepting a plurality of
responses originating at a server;
for each of the plurality of intercepted responses:
in a computing device, making a copy of the response;
and
in a computing device, performing analysis of the copy
of the response to collect data for optimization by at least
parsing the copy of the response to derive a plurality of tokens
and classifying the tokens into a plurality of predefined token
categories;
in a computing device, responsive to the analysis having
collected data to reach the established threshold, generating at
least one optimization instruction set, wherein each of the
optimization instruction set is based on a predefined token
category from a plurality of predefined token categories having
a particular token type;
storing the generated at least one optimization instruction
set in a storage device; and
in a computing device, intercepting at least one
subsequent response originating at a server, and applying the at
least one generated optimization instruction set to modify the at
least one subsequent intercepted response so as to improve
client performance when rendering the response.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
claims 1-5, 11, 12, 15-17, 19-24, 30, 31, 34—36, 38-44, 50, 51, 53-
55, 57, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Betancourt et
al. (US 8,001,175 B2, issued August 16, 2011), Hampton (US 2006,0212601
Al, published September 21, 2006), and Zhou et al. (US 2009/0270076 Al,
published October 29, 2009);
2
Appeal 2016-001059
Application 12/426,909
claims 6, 7, 25, 26, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Betancourt, Hampton, Zhou, and Kim et al. (US
2008/0208961 Al, published August 28, 2008);
claims 13 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Betancourt, Hampton, Zhou, and Samuels et al. (US 7,865,585 B2, issued
January 4, 2011);
claims 18, 37, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Betancourt, Hampton, Zhou, and Simpson (US 7,469,280 B2, issued
December 23, 2008); claims 8, 27, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Betancourt, Hampton, Zhou, and Jiang et al. (US
6,385,641 Bl, issued May 7, 2002);
claims 9, 28, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Betancourt, Hampton, Zhou, and Talkington (US 2007/0260748 Al,
published November 8, 2007); and
claims 10, 29, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Betancourt, Hampton, Zhou, and Shimura (US 6,370,687 Bl, issued April 9,
2002).1
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—13, 15—32, 34—51, and 53—
58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
1 Regarding the rejection of claims 1—13, 15—20, 40-51, and 53—58 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as set forth in the Final Action (4), mailed
November 24, 2014, we note the Examiner withdraws this rejection in the
Advisory Action mailed March 31, 2015.
3
Appeal 2016-001059
Application 12/426,909
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites that tokens are classified into predefined token
categories. Appellant argues that Zhou discloses “identifiers” but fails to
disclose or suggest “tokens,” as recited in claim 1, because, according to
Appellant, the “identifiers” of Zhou are not “classified into predefined”
categories. App. Br. 8. The Examiner states that “Zhou’s identifiers are
classified into predefined . . . categories as described in at least paragraphs
34—39.” Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner.
For example, Zhou discloses “identifiers” that “determine device
capabilities ... of the client.” Zhou 136. Hence, Zhou discloses that the
“identifiers” are classified into predefined categories (i.e., categories of
associated device capabilities of the client identified by the identifier).
Appellant does not explain sufficiently a difference between the “identifier”
of Zhou, which is classified into predefined categories of associated device
capabilities, and “tokens” that are also classified into predefined categories,
as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues that “Zhou fails to teach generating at least one
optimization instruction set and further fails to teach each of the
optimization instruction sets is based on a predefined token category” and
that Betancourt also fails to disclose generating an optimized instruction set,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9, 11. The Examiner finds that “Zhou
discloses producing optimized responses analogous to the claimed optimized
instruction sets (Zhou, 134, 39)” and that “Betancourt discloses generating
optimized responses . . . (Betancourt, col. 4:15—67, col. 5:1—5).” Ans. 6, 7.
We agree with the Examiner.
For example, Betancourt discloses an “operation” for generating a
“response information entry as being optimized” and designating the
4
Appeal 2016-001059
Application 12/426,909
response as being in “an optimized state.” Betancourt 4:67 — 5:3. In other
words, Betancourt discloses generating an optimization instruction set.
Likewise, as indicated above, Zhou discloses “identifiers” (or “tokens”) that
are classified into predefined categories (of associated device capabilities)
and that the “device capabilities” (i.e., a predefined token category) “may
then be used as input to the optimization process.” Zhou 139. In other
words, “optimization” is based on the predefined categories of associated
device capabilities (i.e., the “identifiers” that are classified into predefined
categories).
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. We agree
with and adopt the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and legal
conclusion of obviousness as our own.
Appellant does not provide additional arguments in support of claims
2—13, 15—32, 34—51, and 53—58 or arguments with respect to Hampton, Kim,
Samuels, Simpson, Jiang, Talkington, or Shimura. App. Br. 12—14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—13, 15—32, 34—51,
and 53—58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5