Ex Parte Knox et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201713172924 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/172,924 06/30/2011 Richard I. Knox GB920110079US1 8225 37945 7590 02/02/2017 DTTKFW YFF EXAMINER YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. JOSHI, SURAJM P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2017 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): ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD I. KNOX and JAMES K. MACKENZIE Appeal 2016-001173 Application 13/172,924 Technology Center 2400 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, SCOTT E. BAIN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. YAP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 8—25, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2016-001173 Application 13/172,924 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention “relates generally to network data processing systems and, in particular, to a method and apparatus for communications between a client and a server.” (June 30, 2011 Specification (“Spec.”) 11.) Specifically, according to the Specification, a “first request is received by a first agent application on a first client computer system from the server application to request to instruct a second agent application on a second client computer system to communicate with the server application. Responsive to receiving the first request, a second request is sent by the first agent application to the second agent application on the second client computer system to communicate with the server application.” {Id. 1 6, emphases added.) Claim 8 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 8. A computer system comprising: a bus system; a storage device connected to the bus system; a processor unit; and program code stored on the storage device, wherein a first agent application on the computer system is configured to process the program code to receive a first request from a server application to request to instruct a second agent application on a client computer system to communicate with the server application and send a second request to the second agent application on the client computer system to instruct the second agent application to communicate with the server application in response to receiving the first request. 2 Appeal 2016-001173 Application 13/172,924 Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Agarwal et al. (“Agarwal”) Schneider US 2009/0055489 Al Feb. 26, 2009 US 2009/0138602 Al May 28, 2009 Srivastava et al. (“Srivastava”) US 2010/0318676 Al Dec. 16, 2010 Claims 8—11, 13—17, 19-22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Agarwal. (See Final Office Action (mailed Jan. 9, 2015) (“Final Act.”) 3—10.) Claims 12, 18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneider, in view of Agarwal, and further in view of Srivastava. (See Final Act. 10-12.) ANAFYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal. With respect to claim 8, the claim recites first agent application on the computer system is configured to process the program code to receive a first request from a server application . . . and send a second request to the second agent application on the client computer system to instruct. . . in response to receiving the first request.'” (Emphases added.) The Examiner finds paragraphs 5 and 33 of Agarwal teach the limitation at issue: 3 Appeal 2016-001173 Application 13/172,924 Agarwal does teach the first request is to instruct a second agent application and sending a second request to the second agent application on the client computer system to instruct the second agent application to communicate with the server application in response to receiving the first request (i.e., Notification 112 (first and then second request) is transmitted by notification server (first agent) from the server (sender) to recipient (second agent) which includes information on how the second agent (recipient) is to communicate with the sender (server), Paragraph 33) in order to ensure delivery of a message (Paragraph 5). (Final Act. 4, emphasis added; Ans. 12—13; see also Agarwal, FIGs. 2a and 2b described in paragraphs 33 and 34.) Appellants contend that “Agarwal describes a notification server ‘sending’ a notification to a recipient (not a cascaded series of different actions).” (App. Br. 9-11.) Specifically, Appellants contend that the second request is not sent in response to the first agent receiving the first request. (Id.) We agree with Appellants that the portions of Agarwal cited by the Examiner do not teach or suggest the limitation at issue. The claim limitation requires, “a first agent application . . . send a second request to the second agent application ... in response to receiving the first request.” Here, the Examiner finds that Agarwal teaches the first and second requests are transmitted by the notification server (first agent). (Final Act. 4 (“Notification 112 (first and then second request) is transmitted by notification server (first agent) from the server (sender) to recipient (second agent)”); Ans. 12—13.) However, the cited portions of Agarwal do not show that the second request sent by the notification server (first agent), was sent after receiving the first request (by the same notification server) in response to the first request. (See Agarwal Tflf 33—36; FIGs. 2a and 2b.) 4 Appeal 2016-001173 Application 13/172,924 To the extent the Examiner is interpreting Agarwal to teach a first request being sent from the sender to the notification server (first agent) and the second request is sent by the notification server to the recipient (second agent), we do not agree, based on the record before us, that the Examiner has explained how the “first request from a server application . . . instruct[s] a second agent application [to] send a second request.” For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 8 and do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 8.2 Independent claim 14 contains a similar limitation at issue and the Examiner cites to the same passages of Agarwal for the limitation and makes similar findings. (Final Act. 7 (“The limitations of Claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of Claim 8 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis”).) Thus, for the same reason, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 14, as well as claims 9-13 and 15—25, which depend from independent claims 8 or 14. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8—25 is reversed. REVERSED 2 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons discussed herein, we need not address Appellants’ further arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation