Ex Parte NatarajanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 20, 201612336887 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/336,887 12/17/2008 76933 7590 05/24/2016 IBM (END-KLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP 8601 Ranch Road 2222 Ste. 1-225 AUSTIN, TX 78730 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Murali Natarajan 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. END920080379US1 2725 EXAMINER TRAORE, FATOUMATA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2436 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2016 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): office@klspatents.com kate@klspatents.com hanna@klspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MURALI NATARAJAN Appeal2014-009145 Application 12/336,887 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is IBM Corporation (see Appeal Br. 1). 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellant's Specification filed December 17, 2008 ("Spec."), (2) the Final Action ("Final Act.") mailed September 12, 2013, (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed February 11, 2014, (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed June 27, 2014, and (5) the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed August 26, 2014. Appeal2014-009145 Application 12/336,887 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION According to Appellant, the application relates to "methods, apparatus, and products for dynamically providing access to files of presently unmapped remote computers." Spec. 1. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced with key limitations emphasized below: 1. A computer-implemented method of dynamically providing access to files of presently unmapped remote computers, the method comprising: responsive to receiving a file access request from a user, displaying a file access Graphical User Interface ('GUI') dialog box; receiving,from the user through the file access GUI dialog box, Uniform Resource Locator (URL) formation parameters, wherein receiving URL formation parameters includes receiving an access protocol selection specifYing an access protocol to use in connection to a remote computer, a network location of the remote computer, a port number, and a file system path; forming a URL in dependence upon the URL formation parameters specifYing an access protocol to use in connection to a remote computer, a network location of the remote computer, a port number, and a file system path; and accessing, in dependence upon the URL, a file on the remote computer at the file system path through data communications established between a local server module and a remote server running on the remote computer using the particular access protocol, the network location of the remote computer, and the port number. 2 Appeal2014-009145 Application 12/336,887 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Austin et al. US 2002/0070968 Al June 13, 2002 ("Austin") Knouse et al. US 2003/0074580 Al Apr. 17, 2003 ("Knouse") Phillips et al. US 7,136,903 Bl Nov. 14, 2006 ("Phillips") Ardolino US 2009/0064279 Al Mar. 5, 2009 Levy et al. US 8,074,259 Bl Dec. 6, 2011 ("Levy") REJECTIONS Claims 1--4, 9-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Levi, and in further view of Knouse. Claims 5-7, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Levi, and in further view of Knouse and Phillip. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Levi, and in further view of Knouse, Phillip, and Ardolino. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and issues raised by the Examiner and Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues that have not been raised by the Examiner and which are therefore not before us. 3 Appeal2014-009145 Application 12/336,887 ISSUE Based on Appellant's arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Austin, Levi, and Knouse teaches or suggests all of the highlighted limitations of independent claim 1. See Summary supra and App. Br. 3-8. FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt as our own the Examiner's findings and analysis regarding the scope and content of the prior art. The following findings are included for emphasis and reference convenience. FF 1. The Examiner finds that Austin teaches "displaying a file access Graphical User Interface ('GUI') dialog box" when a user requests access to a file. Final Act. 5; Ans. 2. FF2. The Examiner finds that Levy teaches receiving from a user, a port number through a GUI dialog box. Final Act. 6; Ans 3--4. FF3. The Examiner finds that Levy teaches receiving from a user, Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") formation parameters through a GUI dialog box. Final Act. 6; Ans 3--4. DISCUSSION Appellant argues that the Sonicwall GUI of Levy "is not a file access GUI dialog box as claimed here." Appeal Br. 6. Appellant's argument is not persuasive, however, because the Examiner relies upon Austin, rather than Levy, to teach a file access GUI dialog box. See FFI. "Non- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of 4 Appeal2014-009145 Application 12/336,887 references." See Jn re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 425 (CCP A 1981) (citation omitted). Appellant further argues that "Levy does not disclose a GUI dialog box that is displayed when a user requests access to a file." Appeal Br. 7. Appellant's argument is not persuasive, however, because the Examiner relies upon Austin, rather than Levy, to teach a file access GUI dialog box that is displayed when a user requests access to a file. See FF 1. Appellant further argues: Levy's Sonicwall, however, does not provide any GUI that enables such dynamic access of files of a remote computer that is not presently mapped to a local computer. Instead, the GUI' s provided by Levy disclose authentication settings for connecting to such a remote computer. As such, Levy does not disclose receiving an access protocol selection specifying an access protocol to use in connection to a remote computer, a network location of the remote computer, a port number, and a file system path as claimed here. Appeal Br. 7. In the preceding argument Appellant appears to contend that because Levy's Sonicwall does not provide any GUI that enables such dynamic access of files of a remote computer that is not presently mapped to a local computer, Levy does not disclose "receiving an access protocol selection specifying an access protocol to use in connection to a remote computer," as claimed. Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite a "GUI that enables such dynamic access of files of a remote computer that is not presently mapped to a local computer." And, although the preamble of claim 1 recites a "computer-implemented method of dynamically providing access to files of presently unmapped remote 5 Appeal2014-009145 Application 12/336,887 computers," the Examiner relies upon Austin rather than Levy to suggest the preamble. Final Act. 4. Accordingly, Appellant's argument is not persuasive. Appellant further argues that "because Levy's configuration dialogs are not file access GUis, Levy cannot teach or suggest receiving from a user, a port number through a file access GUI dialog box." Appeal Br. 8. Appellant's argument is not persuasive, however, because the Examiner relies upon the combination of Austin and Levy, rather than Levy alone, to teach the disputed features. Specifically, the Examiner relies upon Austin to teach a file access GUI dialog box (FF 1) and upon Levy to teach receiving from a user, a port number through a GUI dialog box. See FF2. Here also, Appellant unpersuasively attacks references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097. Appellant further argues that Knouse does not teach a file access GUI or receiving URL formation parameters from a user through a file access GUI. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant's argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies upon the combination of Austin and Levy, rather than Knouse to teach the disputed features. See FF 1 and FF3. Appellant further argues that "because Knouse does not describe file access GUis, Knouse cannot teach or suggest receiving from a user, a port number through a file access GUI dialog box." Appeal Br. 10. Appellant's argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies upon the combination of Austin and Levy, rather than Knouse to teach the disputed features. See FFl and FF2. 6 Appeal2014-009145 Application 12/336,887 Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the proposed combination of Austin, Levi, and Knouse fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 16. Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20, which depend from and include all of the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 16, are not argued separately, and, therefore, the rejections of these claims are also sustained. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation