Ex Parte Okamoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

12168549 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
12/168,549 07/07/2008 Kohsuke OKAMOTO JP920070036U S1 7696
77351 7590 12/28/2016
IBM CORP. (AUS)
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC
2313 ROOSEVELT DRIVE
SUITE A
ARLINGTON, TX 76016
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, CARLTON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOHSUKE OKAMOTO
and
TAKASHI MIYAMOTO
Appeal 2015-006631
Application 12/168,549
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-006631
Application 12/168,549
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “a device, method and computer
program product for relaying data communication between a client and a
server” (Spec. 1 6).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A proxy device for relaying data communication
between a client and a server, comprising:
a receiving unit for receiving an access request directed
to the server from the client;
a policy storage unit for storing a policy that defines a
criterion for identifying communication data whose transfer to a
destination needs to be authorized by an authorizer;
a determining unit for determining whether the transfer
of the access request or a response of the server to the access
request needs to be authorized by the authorizer on the basis of
the policy and for determining whether the transfer of the
response of the server to the client will take an amount of time
equal to or longer than a threshold time period;
a dummy message responding unit for sending, in
response to a determination result indicating that the transfer of
the response to the client will take an amount of time equal to
or longer than the threshold time period, a dummy response
message to the client for notifying the client that the response of
the server will be sent to the client when the response becomes
available for transfer; and
a transferring unit for transferring, upon the response of
the server becoming transferable to the client, the response to
the client.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
2
Appeal 2015-006631
Application 12/168,549
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Udupa (US 2008/0034410 Al,
published Feb. 7, 2008) and Clarke (US 6,279,026 Bl, issued Aug. 21,
2001).
The Examiner rejected claims 7—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Udupa, Clarke, and Yamaoka (US 2007/0192484 Al,
published Aug. 16, 2007).
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Udupa, Clarke, and Gangasharan (US 7,827,152 Bl, issued
Nov. 2, 2010).
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Udupa, Clarke, and Bohra (2008/0288949 Al,
published Nov. 20, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claims 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Udupa, Clarke, Bohra, and Brooks (US 2008/0192820
Al, published Aug. 14, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claims 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Udupa, Clarke, Bohra, and Gangasharan.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding independent claims
1,14, and 16 obvious over the combination of Udupa and Clarke (App. Br.
6). Specifically, Appellants contend Clarke: a) “does not anticipate whether
a response to a request will exceed a time period threshold” (App. Br. 7); b)
only transmits a status to a client after a time out period has expired (App.
Br. 8); and c) does not notify a client that a response will be sent to the client
3
Appeal 2015-006631
Application 12/168,549
when it becomes available (App. Br. 9) (emphases omitted). We do not
agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans.3—
20). Particularly, we agree Appellants are arguing limitations not found in
the claims (see Ans. 4). That is, there is nothing in the claim (nor in
Appellants’ Specification (see App. Br. 2)) stating the device must anticipate
that the request will not be completed within an allotted time period or how
such a determination is to be completed (Ans. 4). We also agree Clark
discloses this functionality (Ans. 4—5). As to Appellants’ contention that
Clarke transmits a status to a client only after a timeout period has expired,
as the Examiner finds (Ans. 4—7), Clarke discloses determining a request is
pending, indicating there is a time period before the request can be
completed. In other words, if a request is pending, a check is made to
determine if the requested function is still pending or completed. If the
requested function has not completed, it is determined whether the request is
valid. If the request is valid and pending, a status is returned to the client
indicating the request is pending (Ans. 4—7; Clarke col. 8,11. 21—29).
Appellants do not address this cited portion of Clarke.
Thus, based on the Examiner’s reasonable findings, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 16, and dependent
claims 2—10 not separately argued (App. Br. 10, 18), over the combination
of Udupa and Clarke.
Appellants provide similar arguments with respect to independent
claims 11 and 15 (App. Br. 10—12, 14—17), which we find unpersuasive for
the same reasons as set forth above. In addition, Appellants contend the
combination of Udupa, Clarke, and Bohra does not disclose determining if a
4
Appeal 2015-006631
Application 12/168,549
number of requests are equal to or exceed a predetermined value indicating a
response time equal to or longer than a threshold time period (App. Br. 13—
14). Appellants assert “[njowhere in Udupa is there any determination as to
whether one request ‘is equal to or greater than a predetermined value.’”
(App. Br. 13.) Appellants further argue “Clarke does not appear to disclose
that the timeout period is based in any way on a number of requests” (id.).
Appellants also argue “Bohra does not evaluate the number of requests to a
threshold.” (App. Br. 14.)
Appellants are arguing the references separately and not as a
combination, as relied upon by the Examiner (Non-Final 5, Act. 18—21; Ans.
11—14). For example, the Examiner relies on Clarke for disclosing time­
limits placed on requests (timeout control) (Non-Final Act. 19—21; Ans. 8—
17) and Bohra for disclosing determining “whether a number of requests
within a queue can be completed utilizing available resources” (Non-Final
Act. 5, 20-21; Ans. 11—14; Bohra 17). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings and sustain the rejection of independent claims 11 and 15 as
obvious over the combination of Udupa, Clarke, and Bohra, and dependent
claims 12 and 13, not separately argued (App. Br. 18—19).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16 is affirmed.
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
5