Ex Parte Granade et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 20, 2008

09950416 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 20, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FRANCOIS GRANADE, SIMON WADDINGTON, STEVE
ROBERTS, and RAPHAEL AUPHAN
____________

Appeal 2008-1689
Application 09/950,416
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: November 20, 2008
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JEAN R. HOMERE,
and ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 28, 41, and 42, claims 29 through 40, and 43
having been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2008-1689
Application 09/950,416

2
As best illustrated from a broad system perspective in disclosed figure
1, Appellants’ invention relates to methods and systems for integrating an
application executing on a backend system with a mobile device that
communicates over a network with that application. The disclosed and
claimed invention utilizes a mobile application server that interfaces with
this backend system and, correspondingly, a mobile presentation server that
interfaces with the mobile device. These servers interface with each other as
depicted in disclosed figure 1.
The following references are relied on by the Examiner:
Jamtgaard US 6,430,624 B1 Aug. 6, 2002
(filed Feb. 14, 2000)
Schwartz US 6,473,609 B1 Oct. 29, 2002
(filed Sep. 14, 1998)

Rakesh Mohan, Adapting Multimedia Internet Content for Universal
Access, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 1, No. 1, 104-114, (March
1999).

The issues for resolution in this appeal relate to the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of all claims on appeal. In a first stated rejection, the
Examiner relies upon Jamtgaard in view of Mohan as to claims 1 through
12, 14 through 21, 23 through 28, 41, and 42. This combination of
references is relied upon in a second stated rejection, further relying upon
Schwartz, as to claims 13 and 22. Since Appellants have not contested the
combinability of the respective teachings of these references within each of
Appeal 2008-1689
Application 09/950,416

3
these respective rejections, any arguments regarding their combinability
within 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been waived.
The manner in which the issues with respect to each independent
claim have been presented in the Brief and Reply Brief focuses upon the
contentions of Appellants with respect to representative independent claim 1
on appeal within the first stated rejection. Either directly or indirectly,
arguments of patentability with respect to the remaining independent claims
6, 11, 20, 41, and 42 are based upon positions with respect to the subject
matter argued within independent claim 1 on appeal. A similar approach is
followed with respect to the dependent claims argued in the second stated
rejection, which is stated to be based as well upon the contentions with
respect to the alleged deficiencies associated with the rejection of
independent claim 1. No arguments are presented by Appellants as to any
dependent claims on appeal.
Of the three separate clauses of representative independent claim 1 on
appeal, the mobile presentation server clause is not argued to be not present
in the applied prior art. The most focused view of Appellants’ positions
with respect to the rejection is that the applied prior art does not teach the
feature of the mobile application server invoking methods corresponding to
functions in the application that have been accessed by the sole-backend
system. Correspondingly, the claimed application repository storing the
methods associated with this server is argued not to be present in the applied
prior art. Notwithstanding the fact that each of the clauses in representative
Appeal 2008-1689
Application 09/950,416

4
independent claim 1 on appeal recites the mere capability of performing a
given function, the Examiner has treated, and we will therefore as well, the
claims as if they positively recite the capabilities recited.
The Examiner’s initial statement of the combinability of Jamtgaard
and Mohan as to representative independent claim 1 on appeal is set forth at
pages 4 and 5 of the Answer. These references are discussed in greater
detail by the Examiner in the responsive arguments portion at pages 12
through 15 of the Answer. Also of particular note is that the Examiner has
essentially restated and expanded upon the rejection itself of this claim at
pages 15 through 18 of the Answer. The Examiner’s basic view as to
Jamtgaard is that it teaches all the subject matter representative in
independent claim 1 on appeal except for the feature of invoking methods
corresponding to functions in the application and of a repository capable of
storing methods used by the mobile application server for interfacing with
this application, both of which comprise the argued features according to
Appellants’ contentions. For these alleged deficiencies with respect to
Jamtgaard, the Examiner relies upon Mohan. Because the following
analysis in effect expands upon the Examiner’s views with respect to the
combined teachings, we sustain the rejections of the claims on appeal.
Mohan’s system architecture in figure 1 at page 106 of this
publication illustrates the two major teachings of this reference revolving
around the InfoPyramid and the customization/selection capabilities. To the
extent Appellants’ views in the Brief and Reply Brief argue that the
Appeal 2008-1689
Application 09/950,416

5
Examiner improperly relies upon the depicted cache memory in figure 1 to
correspond to the claim repository, we agree with the view that this memory
does not explicitly function according to claimed feature of actually storing
the methods used by the mobile application server, but it is certainly capable
of that to the extent broadly recited in representative independent claim 1 on
appeal.
What is significant about the teachings associated with figure 1 is the
discussion in the initial full sentence at column 1 of page 106 that this noted
InfoPyramid is used to store multiple resolutions and modalities of the
transcoded context along with any associated Meta Data. The ordinarily
skilled artisan would therefore understand that the transcoding function
associated with the transcoding modules in system figure 1 of Mohan would
have stored within this teaching of this store an application repository
capable of storing the claimed methods used by Mohan’s system relating to
its compatibility with the contents source in system figure 1 of Mohan, as
claimed. This storing functionality and the nature of the data stored in it is
discussed in the paragraph bridging pages 106 and 107, which discusses the
methods and rules for handling the content and content description
transcoding operations and translating functions, which correspond to the
claimed alleged feature not present in the applied prior art. Moreover, the
discussions of the methods and rules at the middle of the first column of
page 107 of Mohan are equally applicable to the alleged deficiencies of this
Appeal 2008-1689
Application 09/950,416

6
reference with respect to the subject matter of representative independent
claim 1 on appeal.
On the other hand, unrecognized teachings in Jamtgaard may be
considered by the artisan as overlapping with the teachings in Mohan and
therefore directly address the alleged deficiencies of this reference with
respect to the subject matter of claim 1 on appeal. The Examiner is correct
in noting the subject matter of figures 1 through 5 of this reference is
directly pertinent to the subject matter of the claims on appeal. We would
consider the teachings and showings associated with figures 1 through 10 to
be more pertinent, however.
To the extent the Examiner relies upon the various data bases 47, 48,
and 50 for the claimed application repository capable of storing methods
used by mobile application server for interfacing the application associated
with content provider 13 in figure 4, we agree with this view. The
functional diagram in figure 3 of Jamtgaard associated with his content
delivery system initially teaches the need for intelligent harvesting in block
22. In discussing this figure at the middle column 5 of Jamtgaard, this
harvester not only grabs the actual content at internet site 13, it also allows
any functionality on that site to be enabled on the target information
appliance device. This functionality is taught to include forms, transactions,
javascript, cookies, etc., which is more particularly depicted associated with
the virtual browser shown in figure 7 of the illustrated XML engine. This
intelligent harvesting functionality relies upon page-type rules sets
Appeal 2008-1689
Application 09/950,416

7
corresponding data repository 47, which was originally depicted in figure 4
as relied upon by the Examiner. Moreover, this XML engine 46 is depicted
in detail in figure 8 which in turn relies upon the same rule data base as
depicted in figure 7 and figure 4.
With this understanding in mind according to these teachings, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would appreciate that they not only overlap with
teachings we have just outlined in Mohan relating to the claimed application
repository, but also for the ability to invoke methods in this repository that
correspond to functions within the application associated with the content
provider 13, to the extent argued otherwise by Appellants in the Brief and
Reply Brief.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that Appellants have not shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting all the claims on appeal within 35 U.S.C
§ 103. The Examiner’s rejection of all claims on appeal is therefore
affirmed.

Appeal 2008-1689
Application 09/950,416

8
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk

ORMISTON & MCKINNEY, PLLC
P.O. BOX 298
802 W. Bannock, Ste. 402
BOISE, ID 83701