Ex Parte Rachman et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 26, 201510934873 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation