Ex Parte Bonefas et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 20, 2008

09709487 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 20, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RUDY G. BONEFAS, MICHAEL MILLER, DALE SHELTON,
and L. JAY WANTZ
____________

Appeal 2008-0756
Application 09/709,487
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: November 20, 2008
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and ST. JOHN
COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-30, 56-66, and 86-90. The
Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2008-0756
Application 09/709,487

A. INVENTION
The invention at issue on appeal deploys markup content to web
browsers on wireless devices. More specifically, a translator receives
requests in a variety of formats from the wireless devices and translates the
requests into a standardized format. A content provider interface receives
each standardized request, retrieves content data, and forwards the content
data to a transformer. The transformer transforms the content data into a
format for the particular wireless device. (Spec. 7.)

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows.
1. A system for deploying content to devices, comprising:
a translator operative to receive data sent from devices
and to translate said data into a standardized format;
a content provider interface operative to receive said data
in said standardized format and to provide content data in said
standardized format;
a transformer operative to receive said content data and
to transform said content data into a format for a particular
device; and
a session manager to examine data content
communicated between at least one of said devices and said
content provider and to identify and return state-based
information based on interactions between said devices and said
content provider, said state based information comprising at
least one of a type of device originating a request, a hypertext
history and a content provider state maintained for a back-end
information source.

2
Appeal 2008-0756
Application 09/709,487

C. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following references:

Nielsen US 5,899,975 May 4, 1999

Namma US 6,182,116 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
(filed Sep. 14, 1998)

McCartney US 2002/0010716 A1 Jan. 24, 2002
(filed Feb. 24, 2001)

Jamtgaard US 6,430,624 B1 Aug. 6, 2002)
(filed Feb. 14, 2000)

Allen US 6,877,095 B1 Apr. 5, 2005
(filed Mar. 9, 2000).

D. REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 8-17, 23-27, 30, 56-66, and 86 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,430,624 ("Jamtgaard")
and U.S. Patent No. 6,877,095 ("Allen").

Claims 7 and 29 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over
Jamtgaard; Allen; and U.S. Patent No. 6,182,116 ("Namma").

Claims 18-22 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over
Jamtgaard; Allen; and U.S. Patent No. 5,899,975 ("Nielsen").

Claim 28 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Jamtgaard;
Allen; and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0010716 ("McCartney").
3
Appeal 2008-0756
Application 09/709,487

III. ISSUE
"Rather than reiterate the positions of the parties in toto, we focus on
an issue therebetween." Ex parte Kuruoglu, No. 2007-0666, 2007 WL
2745820, at *2 (BPAI 2007). The Examiner admits that "[t]he Jamtgaard
reference fails to teach a session manager that examines content to identify
and return state-based information." (Answer 20.) He makes the following
findings.
[T]he Allen reference is relied upon to teach a session manager
to examine data content communicated between said one or
more devices and said content provider interface (Allen:
col. 13, lines 38- col. 14, line 35; session manager checks
token) and to identify and return state-based information based
on interactions between said devices and said content provider
(Allen: col. 13, lines 63-col. 14, line 2), said state based
information comprising a content provider state maintained for
a back-end information source (Allen: col. 6, lines 10-19;
col. 13, lines 63- col. 14, line 2; lines 31-35; the token provides
session state whether the user is verified to access the requests
resource=backend system).
The Allen reference provides proper motivation by
teaching a session manager identifies users and tracks the user
session states to improves security that scales across a plurality
of servers (Allen: col. 5, lines 24-34).
(Id.) The Appellants argue that "[m]odifying Jamtgaard to send a token to a
user on a client of a server would be nonsensical since the token would need
to be used by the translation server that executes a virtual browser." (Br.
11.) Therefore, the issue is whether the Examiner has refuted the
Appellants' arguments.

4
Appeal 2008-0756
Application 09/709,487

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior
art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

V. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Appellants' arguments that "Jamtgaard's invention is directed
toward a translation server that includes a virtual browser for executing web
content that an information appliance cannot execute (See at col. 5, lines 27-
53)" (Br. 11) and that "it is Jamtgaard's translation server that is performing
browser functions" (id.) are uncontested. The part of the reference cited by
the Appellants corroborates these arguments by explaining that "an
information appliance may not support persistent session that may be
required by the web site, but the virtual browser may enable a persistent
session so that the web site thinks that it is interacting with an information
appliance that has the persistent session capability." (Col. 5, ll. 45-49.)

The Appellants' argument that "Allen's invention is directed toward
sending tokens to a user on a client of a server" (Br. 11) is also uncontested.
Part of the reference cited by the Examiner corroborates this argument by
explaining that "a Web server creates and delivers a one-way encrypted
token to a user on a client of that server." (Col. 6, ll. 10-12.)
5
Appeal 2008-0756
Application 09/709,487

VI. ANALYSIS
Because the Appellants have made the aforementioned
arguments, patentability is to be determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to
persuasiveness of the arguments. The Examiner does not contest that
"the token [sent by Allen] would need to be used by the [Jamtgaard's]
translation server that executes a virtual browser." (Br. 11.) The
Examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Namma,
Nielsen, or McCartney cures the aforementioned deficiency of
Jamtgaard and Allen.

VII. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we agree with the Appellants
that "[t]he Examiner has failed to refute that sending a token to a
device that could not use the information included in the token is
nonsensical." (Id.)

6
Appeal 2008-0756
Application 09/709,487

VIII. ORDER
We reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1-30, 56-66, and 86-
90.

REVERSED

rwk

ATTEN: WILLIAM H. BOLLMAN
MANELLI DEMIDON & SELTER PLLC
2000 M STREET, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20016

7