Ex Parte Chow et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 4, 2012

11025609 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 4, 2012)

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.
11/025,609 12/28/2004 Richard T. Chow 33692.04.4924 3085
23418 7590 04/04/2012
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 N. LASALLE STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60601
EXAMINER
PHAM, LUU T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD T. CHOW, ALICE L. CHU, SHESHADRI M.
IYENGAR, BIJU R. KAIMAL. DMITRI R. LATYPOV,
SAMIR R. SAXENA
____________

Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609

2

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates generally to the field of providing
security policy enforcement. More particularly, the invention on appeal is
directed to methods and apparatus for providing security policy enforcement
for mobile wireless devices. (Spec. 1 Para. [0001]).

Claim 1 is illustrative:

1. A method for providing security policy enforcement on a
wireless mobile device comprising:

invoking, under control of at least one of a plurality of applications, a
common application interface (API) that is common for use by a
plurality of applications that run in a plurality of different execution
environments; and

invoking a zone permission check, in response to the invocation of the
common API, that determines which execution environment a calling
application is in, in response to zone identification data associated
with each call in a group of calls in a call stack for the shared API.

Rejection

Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by OSGi (OSGiTM Open Source Gateway Initiative).

Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609

3

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, we decide the appeal
on the basis of representative claims 1, 5, and 8.1 See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
ISSUE (1)
Did the Examiner err in finding that OSGi discloses invoking,
under control of at least one of a plurality of applications, a
common application interface (API) that is common for use by
a plurality of applications that run in a plurality of different
execution environments, within the meaning of independent
claims 1, 8, and 14? (See App. Br. 14-15)(emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings regarding the aforementioned disputed limitation.
(Ans. 3-4). In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’
arguments mischaracterize the OSGi reference. (Ans. 17-19). Specifically,

1 See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir 2008) (“When the
appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, section
1.192(c)(7) [(now section 41.37(c)(1)(vii))] imposes no burden on the Board
to consider the merits of that ground of rejection. . . . [T]he Board may treat
any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.”).
Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609

4

Appellants contend that “[a] telephone ‘call’ is not a ‘call’ in a call stack for
the common API as claimed.” (App. Br. 14).
The Examiner responds:
The Examiner respectfully submits that the OSGi reference has
been misapprehended. The 'call' and 'the caller' terminologies
discussed in page 81 of the OSGi specification ("when the dial
method is called, the first check will be to ensure that the caller
has permission to dial") do not refer to a "telephone call" and
"user to dial a remote server," respectively, as in the
Appellant's argument. One of ordinary skill in the art would
realize that, in OSGi, the word ‘call’ refers to a
function/method call; and the word 'caller' refers to the
application/software which invokes or calls the aforementioned
function/method.
(Ans. 17).
Thus, as apparently conceded by Appellants in the Reply Brief (1),
Appellants’ arguments in the principal Brief (14) are based on a
mischaracterization or misinterpretation of the teachings of the OSGi
reference, as relied on by the Examiner. Therefore, we do not find
Appellants’ arguments persuasive for the same reasons articulated by the
Examiner. (Ans. 17-19).
Moreover, we conclude that the claimed phrase “a common
application interface (API) that is common for use by a plurality of
applications that run in a plurality of different execution environments” is a
statement of intended use and is therefore not accorded patentable weight.
Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609

5

“An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the
claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in
which the invention operates.”' Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.
Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.Cir. 2003). Although
“[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel,
828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed.Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose
can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.
This reasoning is applicable here. Therefore, on this record, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that OSGi discloses
invoking, under control of at least one of a plurality of applications, a
common application interface (API) that is common for use by a plurality of
applications that run in a plurality of different execution environments, as
recited in commensurate form within independent claims 1, 8, and 14.

ISSUE (2)
Did the Examiner err in finding that OSGi discloses invoking a
zone permission check, in response to the invocation of the
common API, that determines which execution environment a
calling application is in, in response to zone identification data
associated with each call in a group of calls in a call stack for
the shared API, within the meaning of independent claims 1, 8,
and 14?
Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609

6

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend:
The claim requires inter alia, having a plurality of different
execution environments and determining which environment an
application is executing in based on a zone permission check.
The cited portion does not disclose any zone permission check
nor zone identification data associated with each call in a group
of calls in a call stack for the shared API wherein invoking the
zone permission check determines which execution
environment a calling application is in since only a JAVA 2
environment is described.

(App. Br. 15) (underline in original)
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings regarding the aforementioned disputed limitation. (Ans.
4-5). As noted above, Appellants contend that the claim requires having a
plurality of different execution environments, and JAVA 2 is the only
execution environment disclosed in OSGi. (App. Br. 15, Reply Br. 1-3).
However, as discussed above, we conclude that the claimed phrase “a
common application interface (API) that is common for use by a plurality of
applications that run in a plurality of different execution environments” is a
statement of intended use and is therefore not accorded patentable weight.
Based on the above construction, we conclude that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim language does not require
more than one execution environment.
Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609

7

For the aforementioned reasons, we find the weight of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding of anticipation regarding claim 1. (Ans. 4-5,
19-21).
Based on Issues 1 and 2, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13-17, 19 and 20 which
fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Independent Claim 8
ISSUE (3)
Did the Examiner err in finding that OSGi discloses invoking,
under control of at least one of a plurality of applications, a
common application interface (API) that is common for use by
a plurality of applications that run in a plurality of different
execution environments that share a common security model
and wherein one of the execution environments is an emulated
execution environment, within the meaning of claim 8?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend:
The Examiner cites to pages 52-55 and Section 4.5 of the
OSGi document as allegedly teaching this subject matter.
However, review of these pages does not identify any
Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609

8

discussion of utilizing an execution environment that is an
emulated execution environment, among other things.
(App. Br. 16)

The Examiner responds:
There already exist[s] a number of Execution Environments
from J2ME; The J2ME scheme uses a configuration and a
profile name to designate an execution environment; since [the]
J2ME scheme can be used to either declare or designate
execution environments, it can be considered as [an] emulated
execution environment; see also pages 427-428 and Fig. 68);
(Ans. 21-22)
As noted above, the Examiner broadly reads the claimed emulated
execution environment on J2ME. On this record, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner’s interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent
with the Specification. Moreover, in reviewing the record, we observe that
Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s specific findings in either the
principal Brief or the Reply Brief.2 Therefore, we find Appellants’
conclusory arguments unavailing.3 Based on this record, we are not

2 See n.1 supra.

3 See Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at *3-4 (BPAI
Aug. 10, 2009) (informative); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609

9

persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 8.
Claims 3, 5, 11, 12, and 18
ISSUE (4)
Did the Examiner err in finding that OSGi discloses wherein
invoking a respective security permission check includes
selectively calling one of a plurality of security manager API's,
each associated with a different [one] of the plurality of
executing environments, based on the determined execution
environment of the application, within the meaning of
representative claim 5?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that there is no selective calling one of the
plurality of the security manager APIs. (App. Br. 17).
The Examiner disagrees:
OSGi does disclose selectively calling one of a plurality of
security manager API's, each associated with a different of the
plurality of executing environments, based on the determined
execution environment of the application (pages 80-81;
'SecurityManager sm = System.getSecurityManager()'; the
system calls function 'System.getSecurityManager()' to get
appropriate Security Manager associated with each caller
(from different bundles/applications) to perform security
check," bundle that exposes service objects to other bundles
may also need to define permissions specific to the exposed
service objects by invoking appropriate security manager to set
permission; see also pages 266-267; Throws:
Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609

10

SecurityException if a security manager exists and the caller
does not have the UserAdminPermission with name admin).
(Ans. 22)
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding the
aforementioned disputed limitation. In particular, we observe that
Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s specific findings in either
Brief.4 (Id.). As discussed above, the Examiner found that the system call
function System.getSecurityManager() is utilized to get the appropriate
Security Manager associated with each caller (from different
bundles/applications) to perform the security check: i.e., the bundle that
exposes service objects to other bundles may also need to define permissions
specific to the exposed service objects by invoking the appropriate security
manager to set permissions; (Id.). See also OSGi pages 266-267. These
specific findings by the Examiner have not been addressed by Appellants.
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 5, and claims 3, 11, 12, and 18 which
fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

4 See n.1 supra.

Appeal 2010-002121
Application 11/025,609

11

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1-20.
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.
§ 41.50(f).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

tkl