Ex Parte Espino

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 8, 2008

10115254 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 8, 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: January 8, 2008
____________

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

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal 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 have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2007-3492
Application 10/115,254

A. INVENTION
The invention at issue relates to providing directory services in
accordance with a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP). (Spec. 3-
4). In particular, an LDAP hand-held client device sends a query to a server
to receive data from the server corresponding to an application. The LDAP
client-based transaction results in transmission and processing of
information with less network traffic (Id. 5-6).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows.
1. A system, comprising:
a server configured to store data in a directory structure,
wherein the server is configured to receive a query from a client
included in a hand-held device in accordance with a lightweight directory
access protocol (LDAP), the query associating the stored data with one of a
plurality of applications on the hand-held device, and
the server is configured to transmit the stored data to the hand-held
device in response to the received query,
wherein the client communicates the transmitted stored data to one of
a plurality of processes corresponding to the plurality of applications,
wherein each of the processes is associated with a sequential thread of
execution, a current state, and an associated set of device resources.

C. REJECTION
Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-24, 26-31, and 33-35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,490,619
(“Byrne”) and U.S. Publication No. 2002/0184230 (“Merrells”). The
rejection of claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-24, 26-31, and 33-35 under the judicially
2
Appeal 2007-3492
Application 10/115,254

created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-39 of
U.S. Patent Application No. 10/114,939 was withdrawn (Ans. 13). Claims
7, 17, 25, and 32 were cancelled.

II. CLAIM GROUPING
When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection
are argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a
single claim from the group of claims that are argued together
to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the
ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the
failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant
has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument
that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped
claim separately.

37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).1
Appellant argues claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-24, 26-31, and 33-35 as a group
(App Br. 10-16).2 We select claim 1 as the sole claim on which to decide
the appeal of the group.

III. ISSUES
As set forth above, we select claim 1 as the sole claim on which to
decide the appeal of the group. “Rather than reiterate the positions of parties

1 We cite to the version of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect at the
time of the Appeal Brief. The current version includes the same rules.

2 Appellants place claims 11-16, 18-20, 21-24, 26-31, and 33-35 in different
headings in the Appeal Brief but repeat language and rely on the same
arguments with respect to claim 1.

3
Appeal 2007-3492
Application 10/115,254

in toto, we focus on the issue therebetween.” Ex Parte Filatov, No. 2006-
1160, 2007 WL 1317144, at *2 (BPAI 2007).
Appellant asserts that Byrne and Merrells fail to disclose:
whether a PDA device has a plurality of applications running
on it, whether a client on the PDA sends a query that associates
stored data with one of the applications, whether these
applications are associated with respective processes, and
whether ‘the client communicates the transmitted stored data to
one of a plurality of processes corresponding to the plurality of
applications’.

(App. Br. 12, 13).
The Examiner finds that Byrne discloses “the hand-held device (See
Byrne et al., column 5, lines 60-65) and Merrells . . . discloses a client
communicating with a plurality of processes corresponding to a plurality of
applications (See Merrells et al., paragraph 0012; paragraph 0015;
paragraphs 0019-0020; paragraphs 0060-00061)” (Ans. 16).
We agree with the Examiner that Byrne discloses a “hand-held
computer . . . taking the form of a PDA” (col. 5, ll. 63-65) that can
“assemble complex queries” (col. 1, ll. 65-66) to servers in accordance with
a LDAP software protocol (col. 1, ll. 38-39) to obtain “directory service
enablement to a large number of applications” (Col. 1, ll. 39-40). Byrne,
therefore, discloses a server receiving a query from a client (e.g., a hand-
held PDA) via LDAP and transmitting data to the client in response to the
query for “directory service enablement to a large number of applications.”
Hence, we find that Byrne discloses a client PDA device with a plurality of
applications running on it, the client PDA device sending a query to a server
and receiving data from the server in response to the query. The received
4
Appeal 2007-3492
Application 10/115,254

data in Byrne is communicated to processes of the applications “to obtain
directory service enablement” of the applications.
We also agree with the Examiner that Merrells further emphasizes
providing information “to a wide variety of applications” (Para. [0015]) in
“[a]n LDAP-compliant directory” (Para. [0019]). As one example, Merrells
discloses performing “useful, complex tasks” in an e-mail application “[b]y
combining a number of these simple LDAP operations.” (Para. [0025]).
Hence, Merrells discloses a client communicating data received from a
server via LDAP operations (e.g., data in an e-mail application) to a process
corresponding to the application (e.g., a process corresponding to the e-mail
application) to perform “useful, complex tasks.”
Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-6,
8-16, 18-24, 26-31, and 33-35, which fall therewith.

IV. ORDER
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-24, 26-31, and
33-35 under § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
clj

WORLDCOM, INC.
Technology Law Department
1133 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
5