Ex Parte Kataoka

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2015

11752970 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/752,970 05/24/2007 Katsuhisa Kataoka JP920050165US1 4714
48916 7590 04/29/2015
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
EXAMINER
NDIAYE, CHEIKH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KATSUHISA KATAOKA
____________

Appeal 2013-001565
Application 11/752,970
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before STANLEY M. WEINBERG, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is for sharing communication information using a local
proxy that operates in the same process as a browser. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below, with disputed
limitations italicized:
1. A method for sharing communication information in a
client-server system operated by a network application,
comprising:
operating a local proxy on a client, as a proxy for
communication between an application operating on the
Appeal 2013-001565
Application 11/752,970

2
client and a server, the local proxy operating in a browser
process space of a browser operating on the client;
operating the application in a process space
different from the process space of the local proxy;
receiving, at the local proxy, data transmitted by
the application, and transmitting the data from the local
proxy through the browser to the server, the application
utilizing an authentication of browser with respect to the
server; and
receiving, by the local proxy, processed data from
the server through the browser, and transmitting the
processed data to the application.

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heilig (US 2002/0078371 A1, June 20, 2002), Hilt (US
2003/0043184 A1, Mar. 6, 2003), and Sanin (US 7,500,262 B1, Mar. 3,
2009). Ans. 3–18.1

ISSUES
We focus our discussion below on the following dispositive issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Heilig, Hilt, and
Sanin teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of “the application utilizing
an authentication of browser with respect to the server,” as recited in claim
1?

1 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 18–19. Accordingly, we need
not address that rejection in this Decision.
Appeal 2013-001565
Application 11/752,970

3
ANALYSIS
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding one skilled in the art
would have recognized the combination of Heilig, Hilt, and Sanin teaches or
suggests teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. We refer to,
rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the
Final Office Action and Answer. Our discussion here is limited to the
following points of emphasis.
Appellant argues Sanin does not “suggest applications sharing the
authentication of the browser.” App. Br. 8. Appellant also argues “Sanin is
not using authentication of the browser for multiple applications.” Id. at 9.
However, claim 1 does not recite “applications sharing the authentication of
the browser” or “multiple applications,” and thus, we find these arguments
are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Appellant’s arguments
would import limitations into the claim that are not part of the claim.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Sanin teaches an
authenticated session between a browser and a server, and the application
utilizing the authentication of the browser with respect to the server. See
Ans. 5 (citing Sanin, col. 4, ll. 4–61); see also Ans. 20 (citing Sanin, col. 8,
ll. 1–7, Fig. 6, Fig. 7). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or has reiterated substantially the same patentability arguments as those
previously discussed for the above claims (App. Br. 9), we also sustain the
rejections of the remaining pending claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2012).
Appeal 2013-001565
Application 11/752,970

4

DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1–21.
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