Ex Parte Espino

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2008

10115254 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MAYEL ESPINO
____________

Appeal 2007-3492
Application 10/115,254
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: May 29, 2008
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appealed under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-24, 26-31, and 33-35. We affirmed.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1), Appellant now requests a rehearing of
the Decision on Appeal entered on January 8, 2008 to reconsider our
affirmance. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2007-3492
Application 10/115,254

2
II. ISSUES
Appellant argues that “[t]here is no indication . . . that the ‘large
number of applications . . . is resident on the hand-held client device” (Req.
for Recons. 2). As an initial matter, we note that independent claim 29 does
not require that applications are “resident on” a client device. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument is inapplicable to claim 29, even assuming that none
of the cited references disclose applications on a client device. However, we
disagree with Appellant’s initial assertion that the cited references fail to
disclose applications on a client device for reasons set forth below.
Appellant states that Byrne “suggests a client PDA with a plurality of
applications running on it, with the client PDA device sending a query to a
server and receiving data from the server in response to that query” (Req. for
Recons. 2) as recited in claim 1. However, Appellant asserts that Byrne fails
to disclose “the communication, by the client, of the received data ‘to one of
a plurality of processes corresponding to the plurality of applications” (Req.
for Recons. 3-4). Similarly, Appellant also asserts that Merrells “does not,
in fact teach this claimed feature” (id.).
Byrne discloses “a notebook computer or hand held computer” (col. 5,
ll. 62-63) that displays “screen images” that show “the creation of an LDAP
entry” (col. 6, l. 38) or provides for “a simple search of the directory tree
structure” (col. 7, ll. 37-38). Hence, the client device (i.e., notebook
computer or hand held computer) receives information from a server and,
based on the received information, displays “a tree of servers” (col. 2, l. 54)
and provides for browsing and searching of “the tree of servers . . . for an
Appeal 2007-3492
Application 10/115,254

3
entry with specific attributes” (col. 2, ll. 54-56). Using a broad but
reasonable interpretation of the term “application” as including a program
that performs a task, we find that the displaying, searching, browsing, or
other activities at the client device (e.g., “hand held computer”) constitute
“tasks” performed on the client device. To perform designated tasks, the
client device must include an “application” (a program for performing the
tasks) because the tasks are, in fact, performed on the client device. “[T]he
PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Also, because the applications on the client device
of Byrne process and display server information as described above, we find
that the data received at the client device from the server (i.e., server
information) is “communicated” at the client device to the corresponding
application (i.e., program to perform a task, the task being displaying server
information) because such information must be processed by the application
to achieve the display of server information at the client device.
Therefore, we disagree with Appellant’s assertion that Byrne fails to
disclose that the client device receives data from the server and
communicates the data to processes corresponding to the application.
Similarly, Merrells discloses applications on client devices such that
“[b]y combining a number of these simple LDAP operations, directory-
enabled clients can perform useful, complex tasks” (para. [0025]). As set
forth above, we adopt a broad but reasonable interpretation of the term
“application” to include any program that performs a task. Because a client
Appeal 2007-3492
Application 10/115,254

4
performs tasks using data received from a server (e.g., “an electronic mail
can look up mail recipients in a directory” (para. [0025])), we find that the
client must communicate data to the application so that the application may
perform the task because the application, in fact, performs the task.
Appellant also asserts that “there is certainly no disclosure [in either
Byrne or Merrells] . . . that . . . the processes being associated with a
sequential thread of execution, a current state, and an associated set of
device resources” (Req. for Recons. 2, 4). However, we do not find and
Appellant fails to cite specific arguments, if any, in the Revised Appeal
Brief filed July 13, 2006 that point out any differences between the above
stated claim limitations and the cited references. Therefore, this issue is not
before us. “Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief or a reply
brief filed pursuant to [37 C.F.R.] § 41.41 will be refused consideration by
the Board, unless good cause is shown.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the
brief(s). Any arguments or authorities omitted therefrom are neither before
us nor at issue but are considered waived. Cf. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is important that the applicant challenging a
decision not be permitted to raise arguments on appeal that were not
presented to the Board.”).
In addition, we find that the references provide more than adequate
support for the Examiner’s findings in regard to the stated claim features.
Specifically, the Examiner states that Merrells discloses that “each of the
processes is associated with a sequential thread of executions a current states
Appeal 2007-3492
Application 10/115,254

5
and an associated set of device resource (See paragraphs 0060-0061)” (Final
Rej. 4). Merrells discloses algorithms that “include a single-threaded
generation and a multi-threaded generation” (Para [0060]), the “multi-
threaded generation algorithm” including “separate tasks” (Para [0061]) that
appear equivalent to the recited “a sequential thread of execution”;
“updating of the state information” (id.) that appears equivalent to the
recited “a current state”; and a “UniqueID,” “read lock,” “write lock,”
“increment clock,” any of which appears equivalent to the recited “set of
device resources.”
Appellant further argues that the cited references fail to disclose that
“the client is configured to extract the data for the application from the
received query result” (Req. for Recons. 5). As set forth above, we find that
Byrne, for example, discloses receiving requested data at a client device
from a server and the client device displaying server information (from the
received data) via execution of an “application.” Also as described above,
we broadly but reasonably construe the term “application” to include any
program that performs a task, which includes the application for processing
and displaying data received from servers. Byrne also discloses “locating a
server in a distributed network using the . . . LDAP . . . displaying a tree of
servers, browsing the tree of servers, and searching the tree of servers for an
entry with specific attributes” (col. 2, ll. 51-56). Thus, Byrne discloses
receiving data pertaining to a plurality of servers, “locating” a particular
server in the network, and searching for a server “with specific attributes.”
This information is further displayed at the client device. Using a broad but
Appeal 2007-3492
Application 10/115,254

6
reasonable interpretation, we find that Byrne’s identification of a subset of
data for a specific server from information corresponding to a plurality of
servers and displaying of this information to be equivalent to “extracting”
the data for the specific server from the information for all servers received
from the server at the client device.
In the absence of specific arguments by Appellant to demonstrate
Examiner error, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 1 and
of claims 2-6, 8-16, 18-24, 26-31, and 33-35 which fall therewith.

III. ORDER
In summary, we deny the Appellant’s request to reverse the rejection
of claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-24, 26-31, and 33-35 under § 103(a).
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

DENIED

tdl/ce

VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1515 N. COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 500
ARLINGTON VA 22201-2909