Ex Parte Laux et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2010

10300907 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2010)

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.
10/300,907 11/21/2002 Thorsten O. Laux 30014200-1030/P6924US 7099
58328 7590 09/22/2010
MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP
8055 E. Tufts Avenue, Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
EXAMINER
YIGDALL, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2192
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2010 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 THORSTEN O. LAUX and INGRID HALAMA
____________

Appeal 2009-009966
Application 10/300,907
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL 1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-009966
Application 10/300,907

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
The invention at issue on appeal relates to:

Methods and systems consistent with the present
invention provide efficiency and accuracy for use
of plug-ins by installing server-specific plug-ins.
Server-specific plug-ins are installed with unique
identification, such as MIME types, referencing a
specific server so that the plug-in may work in
conjunction with that server. In this manner,
similar plug-ins installed from different servers can
automatically work specifically with its compatible
server, thereby increasing flexibility, accuracy and
ease of use while reducing ambiguity. As a result,
a browser accessing a specific type of data, such as
a MIME type, will automatically be directed to the
correct server without significant reworking of the
system. The decision where to route the activation
request may be made in response to the MIME
type of the plug-in that was installed. One
advantage is the ability to use several versions of
the same browser plug-in simultaneously on a
client and to provide an automatic way to select
the desired version and server.

(Spec. 6, [0015])

Appeal 2009-009966
Application 10/300,907

3
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows.
1. A method in a data processing system for installing server-specific
plug-ins, comprising the steps of:

installing a plug-in associated with a server;

assigning a unique identification to the plug-in, the
identification uniquely associated with the server; and

using the unique identification to activate the plug-in.

C. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence:

Internet Archive, WayBackMacine, Plug-in Guide, Netscape
Communications Corp., January 1998, chapters 1-2.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040212183137/http://developer.netscape.com/
docs/manuals/communicator/plugin/index.htm

D. REJECTIONS

Claims 1-27 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Plug-in Guide Netscape Communications Corp., January
1998, chapters 1-2 ("Guide" herein).

Appeal 2009-009966
Application 10/300,907

4

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner set forth a showing of anticipation of independent
claim 1? Specifically, has the Examiner shown "a unique identification …
uniquely associated with the server" as recited in claim 1?

III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"[A]nticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior
art reference discloses every element of the claim . . . ." In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates
anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571
(Fed. Cir. 1986).

IV. ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 8, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 27,
Appellants argue all the independent claims together as a single group.
(App. Br. 7-8). Appellants' sole argument is that the Examiner's reliance on
the Guide reference to teach a method to assign a unique identification (i.e.,
a MIME type ) to a plug-in, which identification is uniquely associated with
a server is in error. Appellants submit that the cited passage of the Guide
reference "fails to mention 1) a unique identification for a plug-in and that 2)
the identification is uniquely associated with anything, let alone a server.
Appeal 2009-009966
Application 10/300,907

5
Just because a MIME type is registered, does not mean that it is unique or
uniquely associated with a server." (App. Br. 7).
However, the Examiner disagrees, and maintains that:

The MIME types described in the Guide represent
a unique identification for a plug-in that is
uniquely associated with a server. An excerpt from
the "Registering Plug-ins" section of Chapter 2 is
presented below (with emphasis added):

Netscape Communicator identifies a plug-in by
the MIME type it supports. When it needs to
display data of a particular MIME type,
Communicator finds and invokes the plug-in that
supports that type. The data can come from either
an EMBED tag in an HTML file (where the
EMBED tag either specifies the MIME type
directly or references a file of that type), from a
separate non-HTML file of that MIME type, or
from the server.

The server looks for the MIME type registered
by a plug-in, based on the file extension, and starts
sending the file to the browser. Communicator
looks up the media type, and if it finds a plug-in
registered to that type, loads the plug-in.

First, the Guide describes that a plug-in
registers one or more MIME types (see Chapter 1,
"How You Can Use Plug-ins"). As a result, the one
or more MIME types are assigned to that plug-in:
"The Installed Plug-ins page lists each installed
plug-in along with its MIME type or types,
description, extensions, and the current state
(enabled or disabled) of the plug-in for each
MIME type assigned to it" (Chapter 1, "How You
Can Use Plug-ins"). The Guide clearly states that
"Netscape Communicator identifies a plug-in by
Appeal 2009-009966
Application 10/300,907

6
the MIME type it supports," and further, "When it
needs to display data of a particular MIME type,
Communicator finds and invokes the plug-in that
supports that type" (Chapter 2, "Registering Plug-
ins;" emphasis added). Thus, the MIME type
represents a "unique identification" for the plug-in.

The Guide further describes that the data of
the particular MIME type noted above comes
"from the server" (see Chapter 2, "Registering
Plug-ins"). Thus, the MIME type is "associated"
with that server. Indeed, the MIME type is
"uniquely associated" with the particular server
that sends the data to the browser: "The server
looks for the MIME type registered by a plug-in,
based on the file extension, and starts sending the
file to the browser" (Chapter 2, "Registering Plug-
ins;" emphasis added). Thus, the MIME type
represents a unique identification that is "uniquely
associated" with a server.

The examiner notes that the claims recite only
that "the identification [is] uniquely associated
with the server," nothing more. The language of
the claims does not define how or in what manner
the identification is uniquely associated with the
server. Appellant is respectfully reminded that the
claims are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. See
MPEP § 2111. Furthermore, although the claims
are interpreted in light of the specification,
limitations from the specification are not read into
the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

(Answer 8-10). We agree with the Examiner's interpretation of "uniquely
associated with the server" as discussed above.
Appeal 2009-009966
Application 10/300,907

7

Appellants in the Reply Brief identify numerous paragraphs of the
Specification discussing problems in the prior art (Reply Br. 4-5), but do not
identify any express definitions for the disputed claim terminology or
identify any error in the Examiner's reasoned conclusion of anticipation.
Therefore, we find that Appellants have shown no error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and independent claims 8, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 27 grouped therewith
and their respective dependent claims since Appellants have not set forth
separate arguments for patentability.

V. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Appellants have not shown error
in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1.

VI. ORDER
We affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 1-27.

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-009966
Application 10/300,907

8

tkl

MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP
8055 E. Tufts Avenue, Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237