Ex Parte Rock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

10551851 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte KLAUS ROCK and UTE ROCK
____________________

Appeal 2010-007493
Application 10/551,851
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007493
Application 10/551,851

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 22 and 24-42.2 Appellants cancelled claim 23. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The claims are directed to method for reducing latency periods during
interactive data communication between a server computer and client
computer connected by a telecommunications network, in particular by a
geostationary satellite network. Spec. 1:87-10. Claim 22, reproduced below
with added indentation, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
22. A method for reducing the latency time for interactive
data communication between a server computer and a client
computer via a telecommunication network, in particular via a
satellite network comprising a geostationary satellite,
wherein a data processing application, in particular a
database application, runs on the server and generates screen
displays of an interactive user application with several data
fields that are processed one after the other in a processing
sequence in line with predetermined parameters based on
commands and data entered via an input medium connected to
the client computer and are then transferred to the client
computer in the form of data packets without acknowledgment
of receipt and displayed by this client computer on a display
medium,
whereby on the display medium a command prompt
signalizes that additional data is to be entered in a
corresponding data field via the input medium, and then

1 Throughout the Decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Nov. 5, 2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 27,
2010).
2 The Real Party in Interest is Rock Technologies Limited.
Appeal 2010-007493
Application 10/551,851

3
transmitted in the form of additional data packets via the
telecommunication network to the server computer,
wherein the parameters for the processing sequence of
the data fields are transferred via the telecommunication
network to the client computer, and an independent program
routine runs on the client computer which alters the screen
display independently in such a way when entering specified
commands via the input medium based on the parameters for
the processing sequence that the input prompt within a data
field is moved to the next or previous data field in line with the
processing sequence,
wherein the server computer is operated using a window
based operating system, whereby the screen displays
transmitted to the client computer are generated on the server
computer using a window program routine of the operating
system on the server computer based on window and object
parameters prior to being sent to the client computer,
and wherein the window and object parameters include X
and Y coordinates of objects being displayed.

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hals
Ahern
Hind
US 6,920,505 B2
US 6,966,029 B1
US 7,194,683 B2
Jul. 19, 2005
Nov. 15, 2005
Mar. 20, 2007
Kramer US 2002/0165993 A1 Nov. 7, 2002

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 22, 24-35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hals, Ahern and Hind. Ans. 3-13.
Appeal 2010-007493
Application 10/551,851

4
Claims 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Hals, Ahern, Hind, and Kramer. Ans. 13-
15.
Rejections
Appellants argue claim 22 as representative of claims 24-35 and 37.
Appellants’ argument for claims 36 and 38-42 repeat the same arguments for
claim 22. Accordingly, we select claim 22 as representative of claims 24-
42.

ANALYSIS
Claims 22, 24-35, and 37 – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the HTML [hypertext
markup language] based transfers disclosed by the combination of Hals,
Hind and Ahern teaches or suggests Appellants’ sever-based computing as
recited in claim 22?
Appellants contend that because Hals, Ahern and Hind “all pertain to
the exchange of HTML pages . . . . one of ordinary skill in the art would not
even consider the data processing technologies described in these
references.” Br. 13, 14. Appellants argue that server based computing of
the claims is different than HTML based transfer techniques found in the
cited references, that are not “suitable in practice” for high latency networks
as claimed. Br. 13, 14.
We disagree with Appellants’ argument. The Examiner has provided
citations to Hals, Ahern and Hind, describing the portions of the reference
that teach or suggest the server used in telecommunication network. See
Ans. 3-4. Specifically, the Examiner cites that Hals teaches or suggests that
Appeal 2010-007493
Application 10/551,851

5
“the server has a database application[] that has several data fields.” Ans. 3
(citing Hals, col. 8, ll. 15-22).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding server-based
computing that generally fail to point out particular claim limitations
applicable to Appellants’ general discussion or how they relate to the
citations to Hal relied on by the Examiner. See Br. 8-11 (discussing server
based computing); Ans. 3-4 (citing Hals with respect to limitations of claim
22). Indeed, Appellants only reference to the claims discusses “the
independent program routine that takes place on the client computer” in
claim 22, but fails to make a substantive argument regarding the prior art.
Br. 10.
Based on the Appellants’ arguments (Br. 8-16), and the Examiner’s
findings (Ans. 3-5), we agree with the Examiner that Hals, Hind and Ahern
teach or suggest the server-based computing as recited in claim 22. We do
not examine Appellants’ claims sua sponte, looking for patentable
distinctions over the prior art related to HTML and server computing. Cf. In
re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (stating that
“[i]t is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail
than argued by an appellant, looking for distinctions over the prior art.”); Ex
parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at *3-4 (BPAI Aug. 10,
2009) (informative).

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that there was motivation to
combine the Hals, Hind and Ahern references and modify the prior art as
suggested by the Examiner?
Appeal 2010-007493
Application 10/551,851

6
Appellants argue that because the cited references, Hals, Ahern and
Hind, “all pertain to the exchange of HTML pages . . . one of ordinary skill
in the art would not consider these references in acceleration of an
interactive application program on an application server that is executed via
a highly latent network connection.” Br. 16-17. Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s rationale for combination of Ahern, Hind and Hals rests on the
erroneous finding that numerous modifications to Hind and Ahern could be
made without departing from the teachings of Hal. Br. 7.
In response, the Examiner found that it would have been obvious to
combine Hal’s server that builds the web page and sends it to the users, with
Ahern’s display of all the information that is sent from the server to the end
user. Ans. 16. In addition, the Examiner found that “it would have been
obvious to combine Hind with Hal and Ahem in order to improve Hal’s
system by providing a better technology to create dynamic interactive web
content. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that a rational basis exists to combine
Hal, Hind, and Ahern. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). In terms of the modifications, the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results. Id. at 416. Such is the case here where Hal,
Ahern, and Hind all relate to creating a dynamic interactive web content.
See Ans. 16, 19. Appellants have not presented convincing evidence that the
combination of Hal with Ahern and Hind was “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418).
Appeal 2010-007493
Application 10/551,851

7
To the extent that Appellants contend that Hal, Ahern and Hind are
not analogous art because they teach HTML transfers (see Br. 6-8, 16-17),
we note that references can be analogous if it is reasonably pertinent to the
problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor
as the claimed invention). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004). As stated supra, we find that Hals, Hind and Ahern teach or suggest
the server-based computing as recited in claim 22.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument that there is no motivation to combine Hals, Hind and Ahern or
make the modifications for such a combination. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hals, Ahern and Hind. Appellants argue claim 22 as representative of
claims 24-35 and 37. Br. 6-17. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 24-35 and 37.

Claims 36 and 38-42 – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants’ argument for claims 36 and 38-42 repeat the same
arguments for claim 22, merely adding that there is no motivation to
combine the additional cited prior art reference, Kramer. Br. 17-18. For the
reasons cited supra with respect to claim 22, we find that the Examiner has
provided a rational basis for the combination of Hal, Hind, Ahern and
Kramer. See Ans. 18, 19 (stating that Kramer is analogous art with Hal,
Ahern and Hind and it would have been obvious to combine the cited
references with Kramer “to provide a quick visual response to input to the
user of a client system during the execution of application by the server”).
Appeal 2010-007493
Application 10/551,851

8
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 36 and 38-
42 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hals, Ahern, Hind,
and Kramer.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 24-
42 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)(1)(iv) (2012).

AFFIRMED

ke