Ex Parte Rachman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2015

10934873 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte OPHIR RACHMAN, GABRIEL MALKA, and
URI RAZ
____________________

Appeal 2012-011005
Application 10/934,873
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1–6, 8–14, 16, 17, 25, 27, 30, 32, 35–38, 45–47, and 49–50. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.2
STATEMENT OF CASE
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for sharing
information between a streamable user application and a non-streamable

1 The real party in interest is Symantec Corporation.
2 Our Decision is based on the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 3, 2012 (“App. Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer filed May 17, 2012 (“Ans.”), the Reply Brief filed
July 17, 2012 (“Reply Br.”), and the Specification originally filed on Sept. 3,
2004 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-011005
Application 10/934,873

2
user application executable on an operating system of a client computer
system (Spec. Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
installing, in a client computer system having a file
system, a software module that is executable to configure the
client computer system to share information between a
streamable user application and a non-streamable user
application executable on an operating system of the client
computer system to request blocks of data for their respective
applications and to receive an input from a user;
wherein the software module is executable to configure
the client computer system to share information by:
locating the non-streamable user application and
downloaded portions of the streamable user application in the
file system; and
the operating system maintaining a single registry
for the streamable user application and the non-streamable user
application, wherein the single registry does not include a
portion dedicated to registry data for streamable applications.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 9, 10, 12–14, 16, 17, 25, 27, 30, 32, 35, 36–38, 45–47,
and 49–50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Shah3 and Cai4
(Ans. 5).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Shah,
Cai, and Hamlin5 (Ans. 8).

3 US 6,959,320 B2, issued Oct. 25, 2005.
4 US 2005/0044233 A1, published Feb. 24, 2005.
5 US 6,615,312 B1, issued Sept. 2, 2003.
Appeal 2012-011005
Application 10/934,873

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1–6, 9, 10, 12–14, 16, 17, 25, 27, 30, 32, 35, 36–38,
45–47, and 49–50
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue Shah and Cai fail to teach a non-
streamable user application that shares information with a streamable user
application, and that also receives input from a user (App. Br. 19–20).
Specifically, Appellants argue, irrespective of whether the Examiner regards
Shah’s helper application or Cai’s web browser to be the claimed non-
streamable application, neither reference teaches a non-streamable user
application that shares information with a streamable user application.
Appellants also argue that Shah and Cai fail to teach an operating
system maintaining a single registry for the streamable user application and
the non-streamable user application (App. Br. 20–21). Specifically,
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
modified the operating system (OS) registry of Shah with the LDAP registry
of Cai as these registries are not equivalent (id.). Appellants further argue
that Cai’s registry is located on the server side of the network and not on the
client computer system as claimed (id.).
After review of the record, we agree with the Appellants that the
combination of Shah and Cai fails to teach sharing of information between
streamable and non-streamable user applications, or a single registry for
streamable and non-streamable user applications on a client computer
system. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Independent claims 9, 10, 17, 25, 30, 35, 45 and 49 contain limitations
commensurate in scope to those of claim 1 noted as missing from the
teachings of Shah and Cai. Accordingly, for similar reasons to those stated
Appeal 2012-011005
Application 10/934,873

4
with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the rejections of independent
claims 9, 10, 17, 25, 30, 35, 45, and 49. We also do not sustain the rejection
of the dependent claims for the same reason stated with regard to their
respective independent claims.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 8–14,
16, 17, 25, 27, 30, 32, 35–38, 45–47, and 49–50 is reversed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REVERSED

Klh