Ex Parte Granade et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 20, 200809950416 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 20, 2008) Copy Citation 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134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 28, 41, and 42, claims 29 through 40, and 43 having been withdrawn.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation