Ex Parte Kramer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 2011

10104863 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2011)

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.
10/104,863 03/22/2002 Andre Kramer 2006579-0149 (CTX-078) 4131
48329 7590 09/21/2011
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
111 HUNTINGTON AVENUE
26TH FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02199-7610
EXAMINER
BLAIR, DOUGLAS B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte Andre Kramer
____________________

Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,8631
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JAY P. LUCAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from a final rejection of claims 1 to 7 and 9 to 31
under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Claim 8 was cancelled. (Brief 26).
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on September 15, 2011.

1 Application filed March 22, 2002. The real party in interest is Citrix
Systems, Inc.
Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,863
2

We reverse.
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for providing a client access
to a remote application using a web service directory. In the words of
Appellant:
There are several drawbacks to using the
conventional techniques of accessing a web
service. Programmatic service interfaces, for
instance, typically require client-side applications
(having client-side application logic) to be
developed by the supplier of the web service to
ensure that the client 105 can properly execute the
web service through its interface. Moreover, web
pages typically require an application to have a
web user interface (UI) to access the web page. A
web UI can limit the amount of interactivity
between a user of the client 105 and the web page.
For example, the amount of interactivity can be
limited by delays in loading the next screen or
object. Additionally, using a web UI for the
execution of an application may constrain the
complexity of the interface.
. . . .
The invention relates to methods and
systems for providing access to a graphical user
interface (GUI) application using web services.
Providing access to, or publishing, a
GUI rather than a web UI or a programming
service interface has several benefits to the user of
a client. For example, using a GUI to access a web
service can provide a more powerful interface than
a web UI and a more user-friendly environment.
Additionally, using a GUI can provide a general
UI to a user of the client compared to different web
UIs for different web pages. Further, an
application executing with the GUI does not need
Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,863
3
client-side application logic to properly execute on
the client.
. . . .
The invention enables the publishing of a
graphical user interface application on the web in a
manner so that they can be discovered by manual
or automatic searches. The invention includes the
step of receiving a service access point (SAP) from
a web service directory. The SAP is associated
with a first application and identifies a web server.
The invention also includes the step of retrieving
address information associated with the first
application from the web server identified by the
SAP and launching a second application. The
second application establishes a communication
channel with an application server identified by the
retrieved address information. The application
server subsequently executes the first application
and returns information to the second application.
(Spec. 3, ¶ [0008]; 4, ¶ [0010]; 25, Abstract).
The following illustrates the claims on appeal:
Claim 1:
1. A method of remoting an application to an
application client or end user application
comprising:

(a) receiving from a web service directory a
service access point associated with a first
application, the service access point identifying a
web server;

(b) retrieving address information associated
with the first application from the web server
identified by the service access point;

(c) launching a second application, the
second application establishing a communication
Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,863
4
channel with an application server identified by the
retrieved address information.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Muir US 6,088,515 Jul. 11, 2000
Roberts US 6,792, 605 B1 Sep. 14, 2004
(filed on Jun. 10, 1999)
Low US 7,000,019 B2 Feb. 14, 2006
(filed on Oct. 16, 2001)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

R1: Claims 1, 2, 4 to 7, 9 to 13, 16 to 25 and 28 to 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Muir in view of Roberts.
R2: Claims 3, 14, 15, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for being obvious over Muir in view of Roberts and further in view of Low.

We will review the rejections in the order argued and as grouped in
the Brief. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Brief. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue specifically turns
on whether the combined teachings of the Muir and the Roberts references
teach access to an application on a network by receiving a pointer from a
Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,863
5
web service directory to a web server, which provides address information
from which the client will retrieve the application to the client.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Appellant has invented a method for retrieving web pages or documents
to a client as well as related applications to support the interface with
those documents. (Spec. 3, ¶ [0010]). A Service Access Point (SAP) is
retrieved from a Web Services Directory #145 and delivered to a client.
(See Fig. 2, reproduced below.) The SAP identifies a web server
containing web pages or other documents of interest to the user stored on
a Web Server #115. (Spec. 9, ¶ [0029]). On retrieving those documents
of interest, the Web Server #115 also sends to the client the address of a
supporting application used to interface with the document. (Spec. 16, ¶
[0047]). That application, stored on Application Server #205, may be
downloaded and installed on the client to present the document with all
functions. (Id.) For example, if the document is a MS Word document
and the client does not have the latest version of Word required by the
document, that latest version may be downloaded to the client from the
Application Server. (Spec. 19, ¶ [0056]).
2. Appellant’s Figure 2 demonstrates the method and system of the
invention. Figure 2 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,863
6

Appellant’s Figure 2 depicts a block diagram of an embodiment of a
computer system having a publishing server plug-in (Spec. 6, ¶ [0019]).
3. The Muir reference teaches downloading an application #36 to a client
from an Application Execution Server #24. The application is identified
from a configuration file provided to the client by an index on Network
Server #18. (Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 13 to 35).
Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,863
7
4. Muir’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Muir, in Figure 1, teaches a configuration file being sent to the client 10
from server 18 identifying the Application Execution Server 24,
providing access to the Application 36.

5. The Roberts reference teaches a Web Services Engine selecting, with the
help of Web Services Directory #102, the proper Application needed to
supply an answer to a request posed from a client accessing the engine
from the bottom though the HTTP 100 port. (Figure 1, col. 5, ll. 9 to 20).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW

Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,863
8
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).

ANALYSIS

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4 to 7, 9 to 13, 16 to 25 and 28 to 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) [R1]

The Examiner has rejected the noted claims for being obvious over
Muir in view of Roberts. Appellant demurs:
Muir and Roberts each fail to disclose, teach or
suggest both i) receiving, by a client, from a web
service directory on a content server, a service
access point associated with a first application, the
service access point identifying a web server; and
ii) receiving, by the client, from the web server
identified by the service access point, address
information associated with the first application.
(Brief 15, middle).
More specifically, Appellant contends that the Muir reference fails to
teach or suggest a SAP received by a client from a web service directory
identifying a web server, which provides address information for an
application, as claimed. (Brief 19, top). This point is conceded by the
Examiner, stating that Roberts is relied upon to show this feature. (Ans. 7,
middle).
We thus turn our attention to Roberts. Roberts teaches a Web
Services Engine 101 compiling a reply to a query from a client (through
Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,863
9
HTTP 100), using a Web Services Directory 102 to determine which
Application (A or B) should be used to compile that response.
Roberts’ Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Roberts’ Figure 1 depicts a block diagram of a web service architecture of
Roberts’ claimed invention. (Roberts, col. 3, ll. 40-41).
Appellant argues that Roberts does not teach the limitations missing
from Muir as “Roberts fails to teach or suggest receiving, by a client, a
service access point associated with a first application, the service access
point identifying a web server. The client in Roberts receives a response
without having to contact each of the different web servers.” (Brief 19,
bottom.) The Examiner acknowledges that Roberts’ Web Services Directory
102 does not communicate with the client, as the claim requires, but
Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,863
10
contends that he is only using Roberts to illustrate that a generic web
services directory is old in the art. (Ans. 8, bottom).
We find that the cited prior art does not support the rejection. Even
acknowledging the Examiner’s contention just above, the art contains no
teaching in either reference of a client directly communicating with a web
services directory for a SAP, then with a web server identified by the SAP,
and finally with an application server to retrieve an application associated
with the SAP. Further, for the reasons stated by the Appellant, we do not
find it obvious to modify the references to add the extra step of having a web
services directory directly contact the client. (Brief 19, bottom).
For these reasons just stated, we find the Examiner has rejected the
noted claims in error.

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 3, 14, 15, 26 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) [R2]

The Examiner has rejected the noted claims for being obvious over
Muir in view of Roberts and Low.
In view of the discussion above concerning the deficiencies of
rejection R1, we hold the noted claims of rejection R2 to be also rejected in
error.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 7 and 9
to 31.

Appeal 2010-003881
Application 10/104,863
11
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections R1 and R2, respectively, of
claims 1 to 7 and 9 to 31.

REVERSED

peb