Ex Parte Gohda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13151068 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/151,068 06/01/2011
75949 7590
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: Fabian Vancott
215 South State Street
Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
08/31/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hidenori Gohda
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.
JP92010001OUS1 4251
EXAMINER
ALI,FARHAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
patents@fabianvancott.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIDENORI GORDA and MASAHIKO KOSUDA
Appeal2015-003821
Application 13/151,068
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-003821
Application 13/151,068
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 9, 11-17, and 19-24. Claims 1-8, 10, 18, and 25 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a graphical user interface display
reproduction system for extracting data from network traffic sent from a
server to a first client device. The network traffic includes cacheable files
used to create a graphical user interface display on the first client device.
The cacheable files are stored in a trace file associated with the first client
device and sent to a second client device in response to a request from the
second client device. (Abstract.)
Claim 9 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
9. A computing system used for graphical user interface
image reproduction, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory communicatively coupled to said processor;
in which said processor is configured to:
extract data from network traffic being sent from a
server to a first client device, said network traffic
including cacheable files used to create a graphical user
interface display on said first client device;
store said cacheable file in a trace file associated
with said first client device; and
send said cacheable file to a second client device
in response to a request from said second client device;
in which said request from said second client
device is made to said system in response to intercepting
2
Appeal2015-003821
Application 13/151,068
a response packet destined for said first client device,
said response packet not including said cacheable file.
Claims 9, 11-17, and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Plamondon (US 2008/0228772 Al; Sept. 18, 2008).
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 11) that
Plamondon does not describe the limitation "second client device ... in
which said request from said second client device is made to said system in
response to intercepting a response packet destined for said first client
device, said response packet not including said cacheable file," as recited in
independent claim 9.
The Examiner finds that the second user for the client of Plamondon,
which requests a web page from a server, corresponds to the claimed
"second client device." (Ans. 4, 7; see also Final Act. 4.) The Examiner
further finds that prefetching non-cacheable content of Plamondon for the
compression history corresponds to the limitation "in which said request
from said second client device is made to said system in response to
intercepting a response packet destined for said first client device, said
response packet not including said cacheable file." (Ans. 4--5; see also Final
Act. 4--5.) We disagree.
Plamondon relates to data communication networks, in particular,
"prefreshening cached objects based on a user's current web page." (i-f l.)
Figure I IA of Plamondon illustrates "embodiments of systems for using
non-cacheable content as data of a compression history." (i-f 561.)
Plamondon explains that "the first user or a second user of the client 102
3
Appeal2015-003821
Application 13/151,068
may request a second dynamically generated or personalized page from the
server 106" and that "[t]he first appliance 200 transmits the compressed
content 1155 to the client 102 or second appliance 200' ." (i-f 563.)
Figure 1 lD of Plamondon illustrates a flow diagram of the steps for
prefetching non-cacheable content, including "a device, such as the
appliance 200 or client 102, [which] intercepts or otherwise receive[ s] a
communication identifying one or more non-cacheable objects" such that
"the device generates a request for the non-cacheable object and transmits
the generated request to a server." (i-f 587.)
Although the Examiner cited to the second user of the client 102 for
teaching the limitation "second client device" (Ans. 4--5), the Examiner has
provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that "said request from
said second client device is made to said system," much less the causal
relationship "in response to intercepting a response packet destined for said
first client device, said response packet not including said cacheable file."
In particular, for the Figure 11 embodiment, the Examiner has not
demonstrated that the second user of the client 102 accesses first
appliance 200 or second appliance 200', rather than server 106. Thus, on
this record, we do not agree with the Examiner that Plamondon discloses the
limitation "second client device ... in which said request from said second
client device is made to said system in response to intercepting a response
packet destined for said first client device, said response packet not
including said cacheable file."
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "the
final Office Action appears to assert that because Plamondon states that 'the
first user or a second user of the client 102 may request a second
4
Appeal2015-003821
Application 13/151,068
dynamically generated or personalized page from the server 106' that this
describes a second client device as recited in claim 9" and
[i]t is important to note such a recitation in claim 9 as being
distinguished from the cited reference particularly because claim
9 further recites that "said request from said second client device
is made to said system in response to intercepting a response
packet destined for said first client device, said response packet
not including said cacheable file."
(App. Br. 11 (emphases omitted).)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 11-16 depends from independent claim 9.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 9.
Independent claim 17 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 9. Thus, we also do not sustain the
rejection of claim 17, as well as dependent claims 19-24, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9, 11-17, and 19-24 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5