Ex Parte Chamley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2016

12266850 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/266,850 11/07/2008
466 7590
YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 Madison Street
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
02/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Olivier Chamley
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0579-1214 4953
EXAMINER
BELANI, KISHIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2016 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):
DocketingDept@young-thompson.com
yandtpair@firs ttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVIER CHAMLEY
Appeal2014-002772
Application 12/266,850
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is Oberthur
Technologies. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002772
Application 12/266,850
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to the exchange of data between a server
housed in an electronic unit and a remote server. Spec. 1:4--7.
Independent claim 1, which is illustrative, is reproduced below:
1. A method for exchange of data between a first server
executed in an electronic unit housed in a programmable device
and a second remote server, said first and second servers being
each individually addressable by the programmable device via
respective target addresses, the method comprising the following
steps performed by a web browser of the programmable device:
a) receiving a response to a first request from the first
server, said response comprising data to exchange and a target
address of the second server and a corresponding redirection
command;
b) executing said response and the redirection command
comprised therein in such a manner as to cause transmission of
the data to said target address within a new request for the second
server;
c) receiving a new response to the new request from the
second server, said new response comprising new data to
exchange and the target address of the first server and a
corresponding redirection command; and
d) executing said new response and the redirection
command comprised therein in such a manner as to cause
transmission of the new data to the target address of the first
server within another new request for the first server,
wherein communication between the two servers is based
on a request/response communication between the web browser
implemented on the programmable device housing the electronic
unit and each of the two servers, and
the responses to requests that are from the first server
comprise the data, the target address associated with the second
server and the redirection command to redirect the data to the
target address.
2
Appeal2014-002772
Application 12/266,850
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 18, and 20-35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Urien (US 2002/0138549 Al; pub.
Sep. 26, 2002).
2. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Urien and Gaillard (US 2008/0287162 Al;
pub. Nov. 20, 2008).
3. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Urien, Gaillard, and Larduinat (WO 2007 /072209 Al;
pub. June 28, 2007).
4. Claims 10-13, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Urien and Larduinat.
5. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Urien and Hugot (WO 2007 /069067 Al; pub. June 21,
2007).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
arguments, and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We emphasize the following.
3
Appeal2014-002772
Application I2/266,850
I. Claim l
Appellant argues that Figure I A of Urien is "disadvantageous prior
art" and therefore "it is not appropriate to anticipate part of Claim I using
Figure IA and another part of Claim I using paragraphs [OI 79-0I88]." App.
Br. I I-I2. Appellant further argues "Figure IA and the associated text of
URIEN teach away from the present invention." App. Br. I2.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that the details of the modification to Figure
I A are further shown in Figs. 4 and 6 and in the other relied upon portions of
Urien. Ans. 36. Thus, although the Examiner points to Figure IA in the
rejection along with other portions ofUrien, the Examiner is not relying
upon separate embodiments, as the embodiments described in Figures 4, 6,
and paragraphs I 7 9-I 8 8 share a common structure with that of the relied
upon portions of Figure IA. As to Appellant's argument that Figure IA
teaches away from the present invention, a teaching away argument is not
pertinent to a rejection under Section I 02(b ). Moreover, Appellant has not
provided sufficient evidence or reasoning as to why Figure IA would teach
away from the claimed invention.
Appellant argues that the "web browser in URIEN does not play a
central role as required in Claim 1." App. Br. I3. Instead, Appellant argues,
"the smartcardplays the role of a relay station." App. Br. I3, I4. In
connection with this argument, Appellant contends that certain steps of the
claimed method "are not performed by the browser, but by the agents and
the smartcard," (App. Br. I5-I6), and that "these agents ... are different
from the browser IO," (App. Br. I4; see also Reply Br. 3).
We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that:
4
Appeal2014-002772
Application 12/266,850
As disclosed in paragraph 0133 ofUrien, the Network Agent 132
and the TCP/IP stack 100 are interfaced with the web browser
10, and therefore may be considered as an extension [plug-in] of
the web browser 10. Thus it can be clearly noticed from Figs. 4
and 6 that any communication, via the Internet RI, between the
remote server 4 and the smartcard 2 must itself pass through [via
TCP /IP stack] the web browser 10, which acts the real relay
station, and not the smartcard 2, as alleged by the appellants.
Ans. 36. Moreover, the claim does not recite that the web browser must
"play a central role." Rather, the claim requires the web browser to perform
certain steps of receiving and transmitting certain requests and responses
between a first and second server. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
such steps are performed by the web browser in paragraphs 17 4--191 of
Urien. See Final Act. 4--7.
Appellant argues that Urien does not disclose transmission of the
specific data and target addresses required by steps (b) and ( c) of claim 1.
App. Br. 16-17.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that paragraphs 174--186 disclose requests and responses
where "the data to exchange [i.e. content.html] as well as the 'desl'
parameter are being exchanged in the request/response URLs." Ans. 38-39.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that "the response from the remote server
does specify the address of the web server in the smartcard in the form of the
web browser's address 127 .0.0.1." Ans. 39.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and of
claims 3, 6, 15, 18, and 20-35, which the Appellant argues as a group.
II. Claim 2
Appellant argues
5
Appeal2014-002772
Application 12/266,850
the SHvI card plays the central role between the display on the
programmable device and the requested remote server. This
contrasts with the present invention as explained above, in
particular regarding the central role of the web browser of the
programmable device.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument. Appellant's argument
does not address the Examiner's findings. The Examiner relies upon Urien,
not Gaillard, as teaching a web browser that performs the steps of claim 1.
Ans. 40.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 and of
claims 4, 5, 7, and 14, which the Appellant argues as a group.
III. Claims 8, 9, 10-13, and 17
In response to the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 9, 10-13, and 1 7,
the Appellant relies on the same arguments presented with respect to claim 1
discussed above, and does not present any new arguments. See App. Br.
19--21. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-35 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
JRG
6