Ex Parte Beckert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2018

13619999 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 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.
13/619,999 09/14/2012 Joerg Beckert P790C1 4863
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
HO, RUAY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2018 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOERG BECKERT, GUIQIN ZHANG, SRINI ATTALURI,
RUPEN CHANDA, ANSSI KESTI-HELIA, and ANTTI PIIRA
Appeal 2017-003767
Application 13/619,9991
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 28—47, which constitute all pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to user interfaces on a mobile device. Spec.
1:3—15, 2:22—30. Claim 28, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1 The real party in interest is identified as Adobe Systems Incorporated. Br.
3.
Appeal 2017-003767
Application 13/619,999
28. A computer-implemented method comprising:
providing a user interface by executing instructions on a virtual
machine at a mobile device, wherein the user interface allows user
access to services provided by an operating system of the mobile
device, wherein the instructions and metadata are stored in a data
store at the mobile device, and the metadata define the services to
which the user interface permits user access',
storing updated instructions in the data store based on
information received from a remote server; and
providing a modified user interface by executing the updated
instructions on the virtual machine at the mobile device, wherein the
modified user interface allows user access to the services provided by
the operating system of the mobile device in accordance with the
metadata.
Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTION
Claims 28-47 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ryzl (US 7,155,381 B2; iss. December 26, 2006) (“Ryzl”)
in view of Gibbons et al. (US 7,275,243 B2; iss. September 25, 2007),
(“Gibbons”). Final Act. 4—8.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Ryzl
and Gibbons teaches the claim 28 limitations:
providing a user interface by executing instructions on a virtual
machine at a mobile device, wherein the user interface allows user
access to services provided by an operating system of the mobile
device, wherein the instructions and metadata are stored in a data
store at the mobile device, and the metadata define the services to
which the user interface permits user access.
Br. 11-13.
2
Appeal 2017-003767
Application 13/619,999
Appellants argue “Ryzl discusses a development environment that
allows the developers to develop interfaces for other users (i.e. Java for
mobile devices) for different mobile devices, and does not address an
operating system nor services of the operating system.” Id. at 12 (citing
Ryzl 4:37-41). Appellants argue Ryzl teaches use of a “module [] integrated
with an emulator of the wireless-connected device” and “Ryzl merely
describes a runtime environment that is deployed on different end user
devices, but does not teach or suggest (or indeed, even mention) an
operating system or access to services of the operating system as recited in
claim 28.” Id. at 12—13 (citing Ryzl 4:37-41, 4:57—61).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Ryzl teaches the claim
28 limitations, storing updated instructions in the data store based on
information received from a remote server; and providing a modified user
interface by executing the updated instructions on the virtual machine at the
mobile device. Id. at 13 (citing Ryzl 7:36-47). According to Appellants, the
Ryzl emulator interfaces with different application types and not services
provided by the operating system. Id. Appellants argue:
When new versions of the emulator are developed according to Ryzl,
then a new emulator interface may also be necessary, as is often the
case with updates for any type of program or emulator. In the Ryzl
reference, this new interface is created by the developer of the emulator
and is not based on instructions stored and updated in a data store of a
mobile device. The user of Ryzl is a developer and interfaces with the
emulator via the emulator interface to work with a variety of
applications used by a mobile device.
Id. at 13—14.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Gibbons teaches the
limitations, wherein the instructions and metadata are stored in a data store
3
Appeal 2017-003767
Application 13/619,999
at the mobile device, and the metadata define the services to which the user
interface permits user access and wherein the modified user interface allows
user access to the services provided by the operating system of the mobile
device in accordance with the metadata. Id. at 14 (citing Final Act. 5—6).
Appellants argue Gibbons discloses a single protocol which can be utilized
by different application execution environment used by a plurality of mobile
terminal devices. Id. at 14—15 (citing Gibbons 4:59-67). According to
Appellants, Gibbons describes a restriction element used to enforce
restrictions on use of a download object when a usage amount has been
exceeded and “thus cannot be specific to particular services as claimed in
claim 28.” Id. Appellants further argue Gibbons does not teach the
metadata definition of services of claim 28. Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of Ryzl and Gibbons teaches the
claim 28 limitations. Final Act. 4—6; Ans. 7—11.
Regarding providing a user interface . . ., the Examiner finds Ryzl
teaches a mobile phone, a virtual machine, a user interface and “a standard
runtime environment that allows new applications and services to be
dynamically deployed on end user devices.” Final Act. 5 (citing Ryzl 7:30,
4:37-41) (emphasis omitted). Regarding wherein the instructions and
metadata are stored in a data store at the mobile device, and the metadata
define the services to which the user interface permits user access, the
Examiner finds Gibbons teaches metadata elements associated with the
download object and restriction elements that specify usage restrictions on a
download object. Id. Regarding wherein the modified user interface allows
user access to the services provided by the operating system of the mobile
device in accordance with the metadata, the Examiner finds Gibbons’
4
Appeal 2017-003767
Application 13/619,999
Wireless Application Adaptor specifies metadata elements associated with
the download object, including restriction elements that specify usage
restrictions on a download object. Id. at 6.
In the Answer, the Examiner provides additional findings. Ans. 7—11.
The Examiner finds Ryzl teaches the claimed operating system wherein
different types of operating systems are referred to as platform and
J2ME.TM is an edition of Java.TM platform and “provides a standard
platform for small, resource limited, wireless-connected mobile information
devices.” Id. at 8 (citing Ryzl 1: 20-21, 54—57; 2:64—3:11) (emphasis
omitted). The Examiner finds Ryzl teaches the “services of the operating
system” as “services interacting with the mobile device hardware by
transmitting and receiving data and commands, such as APIs and various
modules at the core services layer.” Id. (citing Ryzl 3:24—37). The
Examiner finds, “[ejven without the APIs disclosure, it is well known in the
art that mobile devices do not function without an operating system and an
operating system provides services. Hence, “services of the operating
system” is inherently disclosed in the functional mobile devices of Ryzl.” Id.
The Examiner finds “[wjhen the mobile devices, as disclosed in Ryzl,
interface with different application types, they are utilizing services provided
by the operating system.” Id. at 9. The Examiner finds the heart of the
J2ME.TM technology in mobile devices is KVM (K virtual machine) and
the memory of KVM in mobile devices functions as the “data store.” Id.
(citing Ryzl 3:59-62).
The Examiner finds Gibbons teaches metadata that define a service of
controlling the usage of a download object and the Specification does not
specify what types of services are defined by the metadata. Id. at 10-11.
5
Appeal 2017-003767
Application 13/619,999
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. See Final Act. 4—8; Ans. 7—11. The
Examiner’s findings are reasonable and we note Appellants do not file a
Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner’s findings set forth in the Answer.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 28, and
independent claims 36 and 42, which are argued together with claim 28. We
also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 29-35, 37-41, and 43—47 as
these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 28—47 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6