Ex Parte IRAC et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2015

12147780 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte OLIVIER IRAC and CEDRIC PULRULCZYK
____________________

Appeal 2013-003824
Application 12/147,780
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-003824
Application 12/147,780
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a user interface application comprising a
temporary inversion sequence. Abst. Claim 1, reproduced below with a
disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. Method of executing an interactive user interface application
distributed between a terminal client associated with a user and
a resource center server within a network, wherein to perform
an interaction, the method comprises a temporary inversion
sequence comprising steps to:
the client sends a message to initialize a temporary inversion
sequence to the server, and
the client starts a client alternative module displaying
interactive pages on a terminal for the attention of the
user,
reading user choices, and transmitting the user choices to a
server alternative module, the server receives said
initialization message, and
the server starts said server alternative module:
producing interactive pages that can be displayed by said
client alternative module,
transmitting said interactive pages to the client alternative
module,
receiving user choices in return from the client alternative
module,
so as to control execution of the user interface sequence,
the server sends a termination message to the client, to
terminate the temporary inversion sequence substantially
immediately after the interaction is terminated.

Appeal 2013-003824
Application 12/147,780
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Franco US 6,687,745 B1 Feb. 3, 2004

REJECTION
1

The Examiner rejected claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Franco. Final Act. 3–7.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION
Appellants contend Franco does not disclose terminating the
temporary inversion sequence substantially immediately after the interaction
is terminated as required by claim 1 because, according to Appellants,
Franco could accommodate alternative scenarios that would not include the
disputed limitation. App. Br. 6 (“Franco could opt to not send a termination
message after an interaction is terminated. . . ”).

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4–6)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4–5), the issue presented on appeal is whether
the Examiner erred in finding Franco’s message transmitted from an
application server for terminating a session between client and server
discloses transmitting a termination message substantially immediately after
interaction is terminated.

1
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 1. Separate patentability is not
argued for claims 2–4. Therefore, based on Appellants’ arguments, we
decide the appeal of claims 1–4 on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2013-003824
Application 12/147,780
4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–7)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2–3) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Appellants contend:
Franco only discloses that session commands are part of the
interactions that occur in the invention thereof. That is
messages can be transmitted from either client computer or the
application server for initiating, suspending, or terminating
sessions between the client computer and the application server.
However, the [disputed limitation] is nowhere taught and/or
suggested by Franco. Simply because a session between a
client computer and an application server can be terminated
does not teach or suggest the specific claimed requirements set
forth above.
App. Br. 5. Appellants argue “it does not necessarily follow that a server
would send a termination message to a client, to terminate the temporary
inversion sequence substantially immediately after the interaction is
terminated in Franco.” App. Br. 6. For example, according to Appellants,
sending a termination message might be unnecessary and, therefore, a
terminating message would not be sent. Id.
The Examiner responds by finding Franco’s “messages transmitted
from either client or the application server for . . . terminating the session
between the client computer and the application server” discloses the
Appeal 2013-003824
Application 12/147,780
5
disputed limitation including substantially immediately closing the session.
Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants’ Specification does not
provide a definition for what is meant by the temporal requirement
“substantially immediately” as used in the disputed limitation. Under a
broad but reasonable interpretation we find the disputed limitation includes
and is disclosed by Franco’s message terminating a session in the absence of
any indication of a substantial delay prior to sending the message. In
particular, we agree with the Examiner in finding “a person having ordinary
skill in the art would expect that the sending of the termination command to
end the session ‘substantially immediately’, so as to avoid tying up server
resources (e.g., server ports, [etc.]) for the purpose of keeping open unused
client-server connections.” Final Act. 3. In the absence of sufficient
evidence that Franco requires or otherwise implements a delay in sending a
message, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
termination message would be sent without substantial delay, i.e., the
termination message would be sent to the client to terminate the temporary
inversion sequence substantially immediately after the interaction was
terminated as required by claim 1.
For the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Franco together with the rejection of
dependent claims 2–4 which were not separately argued.

Appeal 2013-003824
Application 12/147,780
6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Franco’s messages transmitted
from an application server for terminating a session between client and
server discloses transmitting a termination message substantially
immediately after interaction is terminated.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
msc