Ex Parte Falk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

14072106 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/072,106 11/05/2013 Alexander Falk
133139 7590 02/04/2019
Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.
One Citizens Plaza
8th floor
Providence, RI 02903
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.
406617-505001US 1033
EXAMINER
LOUIE, JUE WANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
IPDocketing@apslaw.com
aps@blackhillsip.com
APS.IPSS@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER FALK and
VLADISLA VGA VRIELOV1
Appeal2018-006513
Application 14/072, 106
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-5, 7-27, 29, and 34, which are all the claims pending in this application. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Altova GmbH
(hereinafter "Appellant"). Br. 2.
2 Claims 6 and 28 have been canceled, and claims 30-33 have been
withdrawn.
Appeal2018-006513
Application 14/072, 106
Disclosed Invention
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to mobile application
development and deployment. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
in a server residing in a network, receiving an application
description file from a design system communicatively linked to
the server, the application description file capable of targeting
multiple application platforms and representing a workflow of an
application for user equipment communicatively linked to the
server;
generating from the received application description file
an application envelope comprising at least a subset of the
application description file;
sending the application envelope to a client application
residing in the user equipment, the client application interpreting
contents of the application envelope; and
utilizing a shared execution model for the workflow,
where some steps of the program logic are executed by the client
application in the user equipment, whereas other steps are
executed by the server, as needed.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 15, 18-22, 24, 25, and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chene (US 2006/0161646
Al; Jul. 20, 2006) and Buzsaki (US 5,987,422; Nov. 16, 1999).
Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Nori (US 2012/0324069 Al; Dec.
20, 2012).
2
Appeal2018-006513
Application 14/072, 106
Claims 4, 5, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Chiluvuri (US 8,392,877; Mar. 5,
2013).
Claims 12, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Wilkes (US 2012/0023116 Al;
Jan. 26, 2012).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Abjanic (US 2009/0216900 Al;
Aug. 27, 2009).
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Hirsch (US 8,261,231 B 1; Sep. 4,
2012).
Claims 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Heller (US 2013/0253904 Al; Sep.
26, 2013).
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Kito (US 5,946,464; Aug. 31, 1999).
ANALYSIS
Appellant presents several arguments with respect to representative
independent claim 1. See Br. 15-22. Specifically, Appellant contends that
each of Chene' s mobile-forms application-definition files only targets a
single application platform, in contrast to claim 1, which recites "the
application description file capable of targeting multiple application
platforms." Br. 15-16. Appellant also contends Chene does not teach
"generating from the received application description file an application
3
Appeal2018-006513
Application 14/072, 106
envelope comprising at least a subset of the application description file," as
recited in claim 1. Br. 17-18. Appellant further contends "there is no client
application residing in any mobile device in Chene," contrary to claim 1,
which recites "sending the application envelope to a client application
residing in the user equipment." Br. 18-19. Finally, Appellant contends the
combination of Buzsaki with Chene fails to teach the "shared execution
model" recited in claim 1. Br. 19-22. We are not persuaded of Examiner
error.
Chene describes a "content management system for mobile forms
applications [that] enables organizations to define and deploy mobile
applications, forms, and business process workflow to mobile users across
an enterprise." Chene, ,r 17. The system includes a mobile-forms
application designer 34, a policy-based mobile content engine 22, and a
mobile-forms application client 18. Chene, ,r 21. In an embodiment, "a
process for creating a mobile forms application, transmitting the mobile
forms application, and receiving data via the mobile forms application"
begins when a user utilizes the mobile-forms application designer 34 to
define a mobile-forms application-definition file 14. Chene, ,r 57. "The
mobile-forms application-definition file 14 defines the data model, form
navigation, form validation, behavior, look and feel for the form application,
and the various processing states that a form document will transition
through." Id. The mobile-forms application-definition file 14 is transferred
to the policy-based mobile content engine 22, which "generates client
installation packages for installing the mobile form application onto the user
devices." Chene, ,r,r 59-60. Then, "[t]he mobile forms application created
by the mobile-forms application designer 34, is deployed to the user devices
4
Appeal2018-006513
Application 14/072, 106
... by the policy-based mobile content engine 22." Chene, ,r 61. "The
mobile-forms application client 18 (FIG. 1) is available on a wide variety of
user devices (PC, Laptop, Tablet, PDA, Blackberry, Smartphone, Browser-
based thin-client, etc.) that allows end-users to interact with application data
and content." Chene, ,r 62.
We conclude Chene teaches "in a server residing in a network,
receiving an application description file from a design system
communicatively linked to the server, the application description file
capable of targeting multiple application platforms," as recited in claim 1.
Namely, Chene's policy-based mobile content engine 22 (the claimed
"server") receives a mobile-forms application-definition file 14 ( the claimed
"application description file") from a mobile-forms application designer 34
(the claimed "design system"). See Chene, ,r,r 57-59; Figs. 3, 4. The
mobile-forms application-definition file 14 is intended for use in deploying a
mobile-forms application to devices on which the "mobile-forms application
client 18 includes a plurality of rendering engines targeted for each
Operating System (OS) enabled mobile device or browser enabled device
that can be used as a thick and thin client." Chene, ,r 24. That is, Chene's
mobile-forms application client 18 supports mobile-forms application
deployment on the operating systems of a number of different devices, and
thus Chene's mobile-forms application-definition file 14 is "capable of
targeting multiple application platforms," as recited in claim 1.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Chene's mobile-
forms application-definition file 14 is "only capable of targeting one
application platform" because in Chene "there are specific mobile-forms
application clients for specific user devices." Br. 16. As mentioned above,
5
Appeal2018-006513
Application 14/072, 106
Chene discloses the mobile-forms application client 18 has "a plurality of
rendering engines targeted for each Operating System (OS) enabled mobile
device" (Chene, ,r 24), which shows that Chene's mobile-forms application-
definition file 14 can target multiple application platforms.
We also conclude Chene teaches "generating from the received
application description file an application envelope comprising at least a
subset of the application description file," as recited in claim 1. We note
Appellant has not pointed to any express definition of "application
envelope" in the Specification. Appellant does, however, provide the
following definition in the Appeal Brief: "To those of ordinary skill in the
art, an envelope is commonly known as a wrapper and a wrapper generally
refers to data that precedes or frames the main data or a program that sets up
another program so that it can run successfully." Br. 17-18.
Even taking Appellant's interpretation as correct, and also noting that
claim 1 requires the "application envelope" include "at least a subset of the
application description file," we conclude Chene's description of "client
installation packages for installing the mobile form application onto the user
devices" (Chene, ,r 60) teaches the claimed "application envelope." One of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Chene' s installation
package includes some data necessary for the installation, in addition to the
data of the mobile-forms application itself. Further, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that "at least a subset of' Chene's mobile-
forms application-definition file 14 is included in the installation package
because the application-definition file 14 defines the "look and feel for the
form application," and such information is necessary for Chene's mobile-
forms application client 18 to render the mobile-forms application. See
6
Appeal2018-006513
Application 14/072, 106
Chene, ,r,r 24, 57. Importantly, Appellant has not specifically explained why
Chene' s disclosure of installation packages-relied upon by the Examiner
(Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 3}--fails to teach the claimed "application envelope."
See Br. 17-18.
We further conclude Chene teaches "sending the application envelope
to a client application residing in the user equipment," as recited in claim 1.
Specifically, Chene' s mobile-forms application client 18 meets the limitation
of a "client application residing in the user equipment." See Chene, ,r 62.
Appellant provides no persuasive explanation why Chene's mobile-forms
application client 18 fails to teach the claimed "client application." See Br.
18-19.
Finally, we conclude the combination of Chene and Buzsaki teaches
"utilizing a shared execution model for the workflow, where some steps of
the program logic are executed by the client application in the user
equipment, whereas other steps are executed by the server, as needed," as
recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds Chene describes some steps in the
workflow of the mobile-forms application may be executed by the mobile-
forms application client 18, while some steps may be executed by the policy-
based mobile content engine 22. See Ans. 7-8; Final Act. 4. In particular,
Chene discloses "the mobile-forms application client 18 is also able to
display, update, capture and attach a wide variety of multi-media content to
the form data" and the policy-based mobile content engine 22 "guide[ s] each
instance of a mobile form through the business workflow process, including
but not limited to, routing the form to different users and sending out
notifications as the data fields of the mobile form are updated and actions are
taken." Chene, ,r,r 25, 29. Appellant does not persuasively explain why
7
Appeal2018-006513
Application 14/072, 106
these operations of Chene' s mobile-forms application client 18 and policy-
based content engine 22 fail to teach "where some steps of the program logic
are executed by the client application in the user equipment, whereas other
steps are executed by the server, as needed," as recited in claim 1. See Br.
19-22.
Moreover, the Examiner also concludes Buzsaki teaches the claimed
"shared execution model for the workflow" by describing a workflow in
which a server receives input from a client application and then uses the
input. Ans. 8-9; Final Act. 4. To wit, Buzsaki discloses "[ e ]xecution of a
worliflow is initiated when the requestor submits input to the client
application program 207 identifying a workflow. The client application
program 207 ... communicates the request to execute a workflow to the
client login process 216 . ... [T]he client login process 216 executes
workflow engine program code to implement workflow engine 221 .... "
Buzsaki, col. 5, 11. 31--46 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed "shared execution
model for the workflow" does not preclude a client application input step
from being among the executed steps (see Ans. 9). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Buzsaki teaches a "shared execution model for the
workflow."
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-27, 29, and 34 not
specifically argued separately.
8
Appeal2018-006513
Application 14/072, 106
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-27, 29, and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-27, 29, and
34.
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(±).
AFFIRMED
9