Ex Parte Redpath

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2017

10654214 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2017)

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.
10/654,214 09/03/2003 Richard Redpath RSW920030154US1 (284) 4642
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
06/08/2017 EXAMINER
SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD REDPATH
Appeal 2015-002806
Application 10/654,214
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JEFFREY S. SMITH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-002806
Application 10/654,214
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8—10, and 24, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention is directed to a system and
method for displaying web content on a mobile device independent of
whether or not the mobile device is connected to a network; wherein, the
mobile device can request updates to compressed files from a web server
and decompress these files (Abstract).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A mobile device for displaying information comprising page
elements defining web site content stored on a server in a network, the
mobile device comprising:
a memory containing:
a web browser for displaying a web site;
a local web server connected to the web browser through a loopback
connection, the local web server including decompression manager for
receiving a compressed file containing compressed page elements, for
decompressing the compressed file into page elements, and storing the page
1 In a prior Decision (Appeal Number 2011-001260, decided September 3,
2013), we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 8—10, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings of Kloba and Bishop (and
Kouznetsov, Van Huben, or Gouge).
2
Appeal 2015-002806
Application 10/654,214
elements to the memory, the local web server reading the stored page
elements and serving the page elements to the web browser; and
a device management system client for updating the locally stored
page elements, the device management system client periodically issuing to
the server, when the mobile device is connected to the network, a request for
an update to the compressed file, wherein the request contains a listing of
stored page element names and their associated last modified date locally
stored.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kloba et al. US 6,341,316 B1 Jan. 22, 2002
(“Kloba”)
Gouge et al. US 6,931,429 B2 Aug. 16, 2005
(“Gouge”)
Kouznetsov et al. US 7,096,501 B2 Aug. 22, 2006
(“Kouznetsov”)
Bishop et al. US 7,222,101 B2 May 22, 2007
(“Bishop”)
Wong US 7,346,649 B1 Mar. 18,2008
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kloba, Bishop, and Wong.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kloba, Bishop, Wong, and Kouznetsov.2
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kloba, Bishop, Wong, and Gouge.
2 Although Appellant also argues the patentability of claim 3 (App. Br. 8),
claim 3 has been canceled. Thus, the rejection of claim 3 is not before us.
3
Appeal 2015-002806
Application 10/654,214
II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
finding the combination of Kloba, Bishop, and Wong teaches or suggests “a
local web server connected to the web browser through a loopback
connection, the local web server including decompression manager for
receiving a compressed file” and “for decompressing the compressed file
into page elements” (claim 1, emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Bishop
1. Bishop discloses that, for security reasons, a database or system is
provided with security features such as firewalls, access codes, encryption,
de-encryption, compression, decompression, and/or the like (col. 7,11. 28—
35).
Wong
2. Wong discloses a web page synthesizer that returns a fully rendered
document to an embedded Web server, which then serves the document back
to a Web browser over a loopback connection (col. 14,11. 33^42).
IV. ANAFYSIS
In our prior Decision decided September 3, 2013, we affirmed the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Kloba and Bishop (Decision 2). As
Appellant points out, our Decision “established that a generic software
component may be fairly construed to include a decompression manager that
receives a compressed file that contains compressed page elements and
decompresses the compressed file into page elements” (App. Br. 7).
4
Appeal 2015-002806
Application 10/654,214
However, Appellant contends that, in our Decision, “no determination was
established that the software component was a Web server that must include
a decompression manager . . (id. ). Accordingly, Appellant amended claim
1 to specifically recite a “local web server including decompression
manager” and clarified that the “local web server” is “connected to the web
browser through a loopback connection” (claim 1).
Appellant contends, “the newly cited Wong reference lacks a teaching
of a loopback connection to a local Web server that included a
decompression manager for receiving a compressed file containing
compressed page elements” and “for decompressing the compressed file into
page elements” (App. Br. 5). That is, Appellant contends “Wong only
shows a generic loopback connection to a Web server without specific
characterization of Web server that includes a decompression manager” (id.
at 6).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we find the preponderance of
evidence supports Appellant’s position. Even though we agree with the
Examiner’s reliance on Bishop for disclosing a general decompression
process (Ans. 4; FF 1), and the Examiner’s reliance on the newly cited
reference to Wong for a general loopback connection between a web
browser and a web server (Ans. 4; FF 2), we do not find any teaching or
suggestion in the referenced portions of the “web server [connected to the
web browser via a loopback connection] including decompression manager’''
for “decompressing the compressed file into page elements” as required by
claim 1.
Here, the Examiner merely finds that Bishop “receives a compressed
file and then decompresses said compressed file” and then merely finds that
5
Appeal 2015-002806
Application 10/654,214
Wong discloses “[sjerving page elements to the web browser . . . over the
TCP/IP loopback connection” without making any finding as to a web server
“including decompression manager” or why it would have been obvious to
provide a decompression manager in a web server that is connected to a web
browser via a loopback connection, as required by the claims as now
amended (Ans. 4). To affirm the Examiner’s finding of obviousness would
require us to resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight
reconstruction. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We
do not resort to hindsight reconstruction, speculation, or assumptions to cure
the deficiencies in the proffered combination in order to support the
Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of independent claim 1, independent
claim 24 reciting similar limitations, and claims 6, 8, and 9 depending from
claim 1 over Kloba, Bishop, and Wong. The Examiner does not show how
Kouznetsov or Gouge overcomes the deficiencies of Kloba, Bishop, and
Wong. Therefore, we, also reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claim 2 over Kloba, Bishop, and Wong, further in view of
Kouznetsov and of claim 10 over Kloba, Bishop, and Wong, further in view
of Gouge.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 8—10, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6