Ex Parte LI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

11133755 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111133,755 05/19/2005 Benjamin Bin Li
23524 7590 06/28/2016
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
098888-7871 9958
EXAMINER
SALAD,ABDULLAHIELMI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJAMIN BIN LI1
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 18-26, 28-31, and 33-35. Claims 1-17, 27, and 32 are
canceled. App. Br. 23, 25, and 27. This appeal is related to a previous
decision. App. Br. 3; Ex parte Li, Appeal No. 2010-007749 (Dec. 19, 2012).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Florescere Assets Limited Liability Company as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
Invention
Appellant discloses a system and method for caching data in wireless
application protocol (W AP) enabled services and facilitates dynamic
creation of user-specific information to provide a customized output. See
Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 18, 33, 34, and 35~ reproduced below with key limitations
emphasized, are exemplary:
18. A system, comprising:
a user profile database that stores at least one user profile
containing output preference data with respect to at least one of
output content and output layout for a user of a mobile device;
an object database for storing selected data from an
ongm server;
a document converter coupled to the object database for
converting the selected data from an HTML file into an XML
file and storing the XML file in the object database;
a dynamic information composer coupled to the object
database and the user profile database, wherein the dynamic
information composer dynamically composes user-specific
information as a personalized, user-specific output based on
segments of data from more than one XML file in the object
database and the user profile; and
a processor configured to monitor information changes
in the object database and to trigger an output delivery to the
mobile device if a number of information changes in the object
database reaches a predetermined threshold.
33. The system of claim 30, wherein composing user-specific
information using the converted requested data includes using
the content-based tags and output preference data to determine
the segments of the XML files to include in the user-specific
information.
2
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
34. The system of claim 18, wherein the processor 1s
configured to generate a log of at least the user-specific
information.
35. The system of claim 34, wherein the processor is
configured to append the log to a log file of the origin server.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 18, 24, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the
invention. Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner rejects claims 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.
Final Act. 5-6.
The Examiner rejects claims 18, 19, 21-26, 28-31, and 33-35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 6;345;279 Bl;
pub. Feb. 5, 2002), Lo et al. (US 6,854,120 Bl; pub. Feb. 8, 2005), and
Greer et al. (US 5,978,828; pub. Nov. 2, 1999). Final Act. 7-15.
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Lo, Greer, and Flom et al. (US 2001/0054087 Al; pub.
Dec. 20, 2001). Final Act. 15-16.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the claim 18 recitation of "a
processor configured to monitor information changes in the object database
and to trigger an output delivery to the mobile device if a number of
information changes in the object database reaches a predetermined
threshold" is indefinite?
3
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the claim 35 recitation "wherein
the processor is configured to append the log to a log file of the origin
server" is indefinite?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Li, Lo, and
Greer teaches or suggests: (1) "wherein the dynamic information composer
dynamically composes user-specific information as a personalized, user-
specific output based on segments of data from more than one XML file in
the object database and the user profile" and (2) "a processor configured to
monitor information changes in the object database and to trigger an output
delivery to the mobile device if a number of information changes in the
object database reaches a predetermined threshold," as recited in claim 18?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Li, Lo, and
Greer teaches or suggests "wherein composing user-specific information
using the converted requested data includes using the content-based tags and
output preference data to determine the segments of the XML files to
include in the user-specific information," as recited in claim 33?
ANALYSIS
Except as detailed below with respect to the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 rejections of claims 18, 24, 29, 30, 34, and 35, we agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We
have considered Appellant's arguments with respect to the Examiner's other
rejections, but do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph-Claims 18, 24, 29, and 30
In rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the
Examiner finds the claimed triggering of "an output delivery if a number of
4
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
information changes in the object database reaches a predetermined
threshold" is indefinite because "[i]t is not clear what number of
information changes is being discussed and how the threshold is computed?
What information is compared to another and how, such that one can
determine the information change has reached predetermined threshold."
Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 13-14.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because "the specification
indicates that the 'predetermined threshold' may be set 'according to user
preferences." App. Br. 13 (citing Spec. 6). Appellant's contention is
supported by the Specification's disclosure that "a change-based trigger 122
... monitors information changes in the object database 116 and triggers
information delivery, according to user preferences, when the amount of
changed information reaches a predetermined threshold." Spec. 6, 11. 12-16;
see also Spec. Fig. 1. While the recitation at issue is not limited to being set
according to user preferences and should be read broadly, an artisan of
ordinary skill would be reasonably apprised as to the meaning of a
predetermined threshold (i.e., a threshold of changes determined before the
changes reach the threshold). Furthermore, an artisan of ordinary skill
would be reasonably apprised of the meaning of a number of information
changes (e.g., a count or value obtained through a monitoring of information
changes through a change-based trigger). Therefore, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding the claim 18 recitation of "a
processor configured to monitor information changes in the object database
and to trigger an output delivery to the mobile device if a number of
information changes in the object database reaches a predetermined
threshold" is indefinite.
5
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claim 18, and claims 24, 29, and 30, which
the Examiner similarly rejects. Final Act. 6-7.
35 U.S. C. § 112, second paragraph-Claims 34 and 35
In rejecting claims 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, the Examiner finds that "[i]t is not clear what log file of the
origin server is appended to the generated user-specific information and
how? Particularly what kind of log files of the origin server?" Final
Act. 5-6; Ans. 14.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred with respect to the 3 5
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 34 because the claim
"does not include the element 'a log file of the origin server.'" Reply Br. 5.
We agree. The claim 35 recitation of a processor "configured to append the
log to a log file of the origin server" does not render indefinite claim 34,
from which claim 35 depends.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred with respect to the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 35 because "[t]he meaning of the
term 'log' and how to generate a 'log' would be readily understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present application." App. Br.
14; see also Reply Br. 5---6. We agree with Appellant that an artisan of
ordinary skill would be reasonably apprised as to the meaning of a logfile of
the origin server, particularly in light of the Specification's disclosure that
"mobile cache 100 may locally maintain logs that can be appended to log
files of origin servers." Spec. 6. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that
the Examiner erred in finding the claim 3 5 recitation of "wherein the
6
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
processor is configured to append the log to a log file of the origin server" is
indefinite.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claims 34 and 35.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)-Claims 18-26, 28-31, 34 and 35
In rejecting claim 18, the Examiner finds Li's content adaptation
process 3 50, which uses client profile 310 in rendering customized
document 370, teaches or suggests wherein the dynamic information
composer dynamically composes user-specific information as a
personalized, user-specific output based on data in the object database and
the user profile. Final Act. 7-8 (citing Li Fig. 3, col. 6, 11. 3-29). The
Examiner relies on Lo' s use of XML files for storing data, and the retrieval
of data objects A, B, and C using a single query, to teach or suggest the data
segments of data from more than one XML file. Final Act. 9 (citing Lo col.
2, 11. 52-58, col. 15, 11. 22-33); Ans. 22-23 (citing, e.g., Lo col. 11, 11. 12-
19).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "Lo fails to disclose
or suggest "compos[ing] user-specific information as a personalized, user-
specijic output based on segments of data from more than one XML file in
the object database and the user profile." App. Br. 19. However, the
Examiner properly relies on Li, not Lo, to teach or suggest the limitations of
the disputed recitation other than segments of data from more than one XML
file. Final Act. 7-8; see also Ans. 19 (citing Ex parte Li, Appeal No. 2010-
007749, slip op. at 4--7 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2012)). Appellant further contends
the Examiner erred because "the final Office Action admits that 'Li does
not teach ... [u]sing segments of data from more than one xml file in an
7
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
object database."' Reply Br. 9. However, the Examiner relies on Lo, not
Li, to teach or suggest data being segments of data from more than one XML
file. Final. Act. 9. Appellant's attacks on Li and Lo individually, rather than
in combination, are unpersuasive.
Appellant further argues that the "general disclosure in Lo relating to
XML files does not disclose or suggest 'compos[ing] user-specific
information ... based on segments of data from more than one XML
file."' Reply Br. 12. In particular, Appellant argues "Lo does not disclose
that the 'ReferenceAttribute elements"' of Lo's disclosed sub-graph of a
data model "are actually used for anything, only that they 'exist' in XML
documents." Id. at 13. Appellant thus argues that "even if the
'ReferenceAttribute elements' were similar to the 'segments of data from
more than one XML file' of Claim 18, the 'ReferenceAttribute elements' of
Lo are still not used for 'compos[ing] user-specific information.'" Id.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner relies
on Li, not Lo, for the claimed use of the data (i.e., for composing user-
specific information). Final Act. 7-8. Furthermore, as the Examiner's
findings show, Lo teaches or suggests the storing of data objects as XML.
See, e.g., Final Act. 9 (citing Lo col. 15, 11. 22-33) ("structure results are
converted to a well-formed XML stream"); Final Act. 9 (citing Lo col. 2, 11.
52-58) ("the HTML input form, dynamic ERP Application data access, Java
objects definitions and HTML report from are stored in [the] form of XML
files"); Ans. 22 (citing Lo col. 5, 11. 50-58) ("[t]he runtime engine of the
ERP Web Gateway 16 reads the XML [template] files to generate the
appropriate Java objects"). The Examiner's findings further show Lo
teaches or suggests the retrieval of multiple data objects with a single query.
8
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
Ans. 22-23 (citing Lo col. 11, 11. 12-19). Thus, Lo teaches or suggest that
data can be segments of data from more than one XML file (e.g., multiple
data objects stored as XML files and retrieved with a single query).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Li (composing user-specific information based on data in an
object database) and Lo (retrieving data from more than one XML file)
teaches or suggests "wherein the dynamic information composer
dynamically composes user-specific information as a personalized, user-
specific output based on segments of data from more than one XML file in
the object database and the user profile," as recited in claim 18.
In rejecting claim 18, the Examiner also finds Greer's use of change
control records that summarize changes of web page objects, along with
Greer's automatic downloading of a web page after the web page has gone
through a predetermined number of revisions, teaches or suggests a
processor configured to monitor information changes in the object database
and to trigger an output delivery to the mobile device if a number of
information changes in the object database reaches a predetermined
threshold. Final Act. 9-10 (citing Greer col. 3, 11. 33-57, col. 4, 11. 47-54,
and col. 7, 11. 23-33); Ans. 15-18 (citing, e.g., Greer Fig. 3, col. 1, 11. 57-
60).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Greer's "web page
revision is not equivalent to the monitoring of 'information changes in the
object database."' App. Br. 17. Appellant further argues that "Greer keeps a
'record' of changes only of a web page [rather than] monitoring 'changes in
the object database."' Id.; see also Reply Br. 7.
9
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because Appellant does not
persuasively distinguish the claimed object database from Greer's web page
change control database, which is a database of all of the change control
records that summarize the changes of each web page object. Greer col. 3,
11. 33-39. Appellant also does not persuasively distinguish the claimed
triggering of an output delivery when a number of information changes
reaches a predetermined threshold from Greer's automatic downloading of a
web page that has gone through a predetermined number (i.e., a
predetermined threshold) of revisions. Id. col. 7, 11. 23-29. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Greer teaches or suggests "a processor
configured to monitor information changes in the object database and to
trigger an output delivery to the mobile device if a number of information
changes in the object database reaches a predetermined threshold," as recited
in claim 18.
For these reasons, Appellant's arguments with respect to the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18 are unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection of claim 18, and the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 19-26, 28-31, 34, and 35, which
Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 21.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)-Claim 33
In rejecting claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
Li's use of XML, along with Lo' s conversion of output into XML text data,
teaches or suggests wherein composing user-specific information using the
converted requested data includes using the content-based tags and output
preference data to determine the segments of the XML files to include in the
10
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
user-specific information. Final Act. 15 (citing Li col. 2, 11. 56-67); Ans.
23-24 (citing Lo col. 15, 11. 22-33).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Li merely "discloses a
system that 'permits content to be authored in XML ... allowing the author
to provide more information to the transcoding and adaptation systems.'"
App. Br. 22 (citing Li col. 2, 11. 63---66); see also Reply Br. 14. However,
Appellant's argument does not address the Examiner's findings as they
relate to Lo.
Appellant further argues that "'[c]onverting ... into XML' as in Lo is
not the same as 'composing user-specific information using the converted
requested data," as recited in Claim 33. Id. However, as discussed above
with respect to the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18, the
Examiner's findings show that the combination of Li and Lo teaches or
suggests composing user-specifzc information based on segments of data
from more than one XML file in the object database. Moreover, Appellant
does not persuasively distinguish the claimed converted requested data from
Lo' s data that is converted from output to XML text. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Li, Lo, and Greer teaches or
suggests "wherein composing user-specific information using the converted
requested data includes using the content-based tags and output preference
data to determine the segments of the XML files to include in the user-
specific information," as recited in claim 33.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 33.
11
Appeal2014-007372
Application 11/133,755
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18-26, 28-31,
and 33-35.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
12