Ex Parte Quinet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

12276780 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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.
12/276,780 11/24/2008 Raphael Quinet P16489-US2 4779
27045 7590 12/21/2016
F.RTrSSON TNC
EXAMINER
6300 LEGACY DRIVE SEYE, ABDOU K
M/SEVR 1-C-ll
PLANO, TX 75024 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
michelle. sanderson @ eric sson .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAPHAEL QUINET and DANIEL SCHAFFRATH
Appeal 2015-007009
Application 12/276,7801
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, KAMRAN JIVANI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11, 13—15, 19, 23, and 25. Claim 24 has been cancelled.
App. Br. 12. Claims 4, 10, 12, 16—18, and 20—22, are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-007009
Application 12/276,780
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to an object transfer
from a first network component via an intermediate component to a second
network component, the second network component being remote from the
first network component.” Spec. |2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of operating a proxy server, comprising:
finding a reference to an object in a previous object that is
to be forwarded to a client; and
upon finding the reference to the object, assigning or
adjusting a priority of the object to be sent to the client.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Hansmann US 2002/0143896 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
Takahashi US 6,697,859 B1 Feb. 24,2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 5—9, 11, 13—15, 19, 23, and 25 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hansmann in view of
Takahashi. Final Act. 3—12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
2
Appeal 2015-007009
Application 12/276,780
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1—3, 5—9,
11, 13-15, 19, 23, and 25.
Appellants argue that neither of the two references relied on by the
Examiner teach “upon finding the reference to the object, assigning or
adjusting a priority of the object to be sent to the client” as recited in claim
1. App. Br. 3—7; Reply Br. Although the cited sections of Hansmann
teach using a priority, Appellants argue there is no teaching that the
priorities are assigned or modified, “let alone that they are done so upon
finding the reference to the object.” App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellants further argues that although “the cited portions of Takahashi may
discuss the setting and adjusting of data priority, there is absolutely no
disclosure or suggestion that these steps occur in relation to finding a
reference to the data, as required by the claim.” App. Br. 5; see also Reply
Br. 3.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellants’ arguments are directed to the
references individually and not the combined teachings, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
3
Appeal 2015-007009
Application 12/276,780
Specifically, the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute,
Hansmann teaches “finding a reference to an object in a previous object that
is to be forwarded to a client, as recited in claim 1See Final Act. 3; Ans.
3. Appellants have not identified any errors in that specific finding. “If an
appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue ... the Board will
not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.” Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
The Examiner further finds Hansmann teaches adjusting or assigning
a priority. Final Act. 4 (citing Hansmann 148); see also Ans. 4 (finding that
because the links contain priority information, “priority is assigned to the
object to be sent to the client”) (citing Hansmann 137). Although
Hansmann does not explicitly teach assigning or adjusting priority at the
relevant time recited in the claim, we agree with the Examiner that because a
priority is used, that priority must be assigned at some time.
Although the Examiner notes Hansmann does not explicitly teach the
assigning or adjusting of a priority upon finding the reference, the Examiner
finds that the combination of the teachings of Hansmann and Takahashi
teaches or at least suggests that limitation. Final Act. 3—4\ Ans. 4.
Specifically, Takahashi teaches assigning or adjusting priority when
registering data. Final Act. 3—4, 13—14; Ans. 4.2 The Examiner concludes,
and we agree, the combination teaches and suggests the disputed claim
limitation. Id. Specifically, the combination of the teachings of Hansmann
(finding an object and assigning a priority) with the teaching of Takahashi
2 As noted earlier, Appellants concede that Takahashi teaches setting or
adjusting data priority. App. Br. 5
4
Appeal 2015-007009
Application 12/276,780
(adjusting a priority upon a finding data) teach and suggest the disputed
limitation. Appellants’ arguments, that are directed to the references
individually and not the combined teachings and suggestions of the
references, do not persuade us that the Examiner’s determination was in
error.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred in finding a reason to
combine the references. App. Br. 6—7. Appellants’ argument is not
premised on the Examiner not making a finding of a reason to combine, but
that the given reason to combine “fails to disclose or suggest the actual claim
limitation.” App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
erred. The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined the teachings of the two prior art references “because it
would allow to set up priority level and forward data based on it, preferable
acquisition of data with high degree of importance is achieved.” Final Act.
4; see also Ans. 6. The Examiner’s finding provides a “rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSRInt’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We further determine that such a
motivation provides the basis the Examiner’s combination of the teachings
of the references.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claims 23 and 25, which are argued on the same
grounds, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5—9, 11, 13—15, and 19, which are not
argued separately.
5
Appeal 2015-007009
Application 12/276,780
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—3, 5—9, 11, 13—15, 19, 23, and 25.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6