Ex Parte Saridakis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2014

11158710 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2014)

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.
11/158,710 06/22/2005 Titos Saridakis 54073-P010US 1630
7590 02/14/2014
Winstead PC
5000 Winstead Building
2728 N. Harwood Street
Dallas, TX 75201
EXAMINER
HENRY, MARIEGEORGES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte TITOS SARIDAKIS 7
___________ 8
9
Appeal 2011-008430 10
Application 11/158,710 11
Technology Center 2400 12
___________ 13
14
15
Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and 16
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. 17
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 18
DECISION ON APPEAL19

Appeal 2011-008430
Application 11/158,710

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed October 25, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
January 4, 2011).
Titos Saridakis (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a 2
final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 16-19, and 21-28, the only claims 3
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal 4
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 5
The Appellant invented a way of establishing peer to peer (P2P) 6
connections between PCS and smart phones or other devices, including 7
personal computers, over a network that obstructs the straightforward 8
establishment of such P2P connections using means such as firewalls and 9
network address translation (NAT) servers (Specification para 0001). 10
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 11
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 12
paragraphing added]. 13
1. A method comprising: 14
[1] receiving at a relay server 15
an HTTP request 16
from a first peer device 17
via a network including an obstacle, 18
wherein the HTTP request from the first peer device 19
comprises data intended for a second peer device; 20
Appeal 2011-008430
Application 11/158,710

3
[2] receiving at the relay server 1
an HTTP request 2
from the second peer device, 3
the HTTP request from the second peer device including 4
an indication that the second peer device is 5
listening for connections; 6
[3] generating at the relay server 7
an HTTP response 8
to the HTTP request received from the second peer 9
device; 10
[4] copying the data 11
from the HTTP request 12
from the first peer device 13
intended for the second peer device 14
into the HTTP response; 15
and 16
[5] transmitting the HTTP response 17
from the relay server 18
to the second peer device. 19
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 20
Zhu US 6,789,119 B1 Sep. 7, 2004
Chitilian US 2006/0075116 A1 Apr. 6, 2006
Kadri US 2003/0131258 A1 Jul. 10, 2003
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, and 24-28 stand rejected under 21
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhu and Chitilian. 22
Appeal 2011-008430
Application 11/158,710

4
Claims 8, 18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 1
unpatentable over Zhu, Chitilian, and Kadri. 2
ISSUES 3
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether Chitilian’s listener 4
operates for the benefit of its client, and whether holding data for a short 5
period would not be considered buffering. 6
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 7
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 8
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 9
Facts Related to the Prior Art 10
Zhu 11
01. Zhu is directed to data interchange, and more particularly to 12
establishing a persistent and stable communication connection. 13
Zhu 1:8-10. 14
02. Zhu describes three implementations: 15
a. receiving an empty get from a first client; receiving a get 16
from a second client, the get containing data to be sent to 17
the first client; and sending a response to the first client, in 18
response to the empty get, the response containing the data. 19
b. receiving, from a client, a get containing first data to be sent 20
to an application server; sending the first data to the 21
application server; sending an ack response to the client in 22
response to the get; receiving a response from the 23
Appeal 2011-008430
Application 11/158,710

5
application server, the response containing second data to 1
be sent to the client; waiting for an empty get from the 2
client; receiving an empty get from the client; and sending 3
the second data to the client in response to the empty get. 4
c. receiving, from a client, a get containing first data to be sent 5
to an application server; sending the first data to the 6
application server; sending an ack response to the client in 7
response to the get; receiving an empty get from the client; 8
receiving a response from the application server, the 9
response containing second data to be sent to the client; and 10
sending the second data to the client in response to the 11
empty get. 12
Zhu 2:1-24. 13
03. Referring to FIG. 1 and FIG. 3, client B first sends an empty get 14
message to the http server. The http server holds the empty get for 15
a specific amount of time. During this period, the http server 16
receives a get message from client A. The get message transmits 17
data describing a circle that client A has drawn in a window of his 18
data conferencing application. When the http server receives the 19
circle data in the get message, it transmits a response message 20
containing the circle data to client B. The response message is sent 21
in response to the empty get message previously sent by client B. 22
Client B then sends an empty get message to the http server, to 23
permit the http server to send further data to client B. This is an 24
example of the present invention operating in a data conferencing 25
Appeal 2011-008430
Application 11/158,710

6
scenario where the http server is running a data conferencing 1
application that provides windows to clients A and B by which 2
they can view common data and communicate together. Zhu 4:1-3
17. 4
Chitilian 5
04. Chitilian is directed to enabling an application server to serve 6
an enterprise application over multiple protocols, such as telnet 7
and HTTP. Chitilian para 0002. 8
05. In FIG. 1, application server includes Telnet server and web 9
container. Web application is deployed within the web container 10
(e.g., as a .ear file); Telnet server may also be deployed as an ear 11
file. Web application comprises a single application process that 12
supports a heterogeneous mix of client devices that employ 13
different communication protocols. Chitilian para 0027. 14
06. The devices operate a client version of application, and may 15
include portable and/or non-portable devices. Some clients may 16
communicate with the application server via discrete requests 17
and/or responses transmitted over non-persistent communication 18
connections (e.g., using HTTP). Some may communicate via 19
(theoretically) continuous streams of data transmitted over 20
persistent connections (e.g., using Telnet). Chitilian para 0028. 21
07. HTTP listener, which may be deployed as part of application, 22
comprises a listener for HTTP connections, and may include a 23
web server. The HTTP listener is configured to receive 24
connections from HTTP clients and relay client-server interactions 25
Appeal 2011-008430
Application 11/158,710

7
between the clients and the web container within which web 1
application is deployed. Chitilian para 0029. 2
ANALYSIS 3
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that 4
HTTP listener is configured to receive connections from HTTP 5
clients and relay client-server interactions between the clients 6
and a web container within which a web application 132 is 7
deployed. Receiving connections from HTTP clients fails to 8
teach or suggest that a client (e.g., the alleged second peer 9
device) is listening for connections. At most, paragraph [0029] 10
of Chitilian would provide that the application server 110 (by 11
way of HTTP listener 112) is listening for connections (as 12
opposed to an HTTP client listening for connections). 13
App. Br. 7. The Appellants' contention does not persuade us of error on 14
the part of the Examiner because the Appellants respond to the rejection by 15
attacking the references separately, even though the rejection is based on the 16
combined teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be 17
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is 18
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & 19
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 20
The Examiner mapped Zhu’s http server to the relay server and Zhu’s 21
client A and client B equate to two peer devices. The Examiner applied 22
Chitilian’s http connections listener capable of indicating device connection 23
to describe the claimed relay client-server listening. The Examiner found 24
that Zhu discloses the two devices having a peer to peer communication 25
circumventing an obstacle, the Examiner recognized that Zhu does not 26
disclose the HTTP request from the second peer device including an 27
Appeal 2011-008430
Application 11/158,710

8
indication that the second peer device is listening for connections. The 1
Examiner found that instead, Chitilian discloses the HTTP request from the 2
second peer device including an indication that the second peer device is 3
listening for connections, citing Chitilian [0029], where an HTTP listener is 4
receiving connections from HTTP clients. 5
The Examiner found it predictable and therefore, it would have been 6
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was 7
made to implement Chitilian connection listener feature into Zhu’s peer-to -8
peer communication method in order to create a per-to -peer communication 9
method with connection listener feature to support a heterogeneous mix of 10
client devices that employ different communication protocols (Chitilian, 11
[0027]). Ans. 15. 12
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and analysis, 13
particularly as claim 1 does not actually recite a step of the second peer 14
device is listening for connections, only some unspecified indication that 15
might be perceived as indicating such listening is occurring. Also, claim 1 16
does not specify the manner in which such listening might occur, only that 17
the second peer device might be perceived to be in some manner listening. 18
As listening is no more than being in a position to accept input, and both 19
of Zhu’s clients accept input, both of Zhu’s clients can be said to be 20
listening. As to whether the expected input is some connection attempt, 21
again the manner of such connection is unspecified, and both Zhu’s clients 22
accept HTTP connections. Finally, although Chitilian’s Fig. 1 shows the 23
listener to be attached to the server, it’s location in the data path is between 24
the server and client, and so is listening on behalf of both client and server. 25
Appeal 2011-008430
Application 11/158,710

9
As to separately argued claim 10, which recites “the relay server does 1
not buffer the data received from the first peer device intended for the 2
second peer device,” Appellants argue that 3
Zhu at col. 4, lines 2-3 describes holding data for a specific 4
amount of time. Holding data at an HTTP server for a specific 5
amount of time teaches away from not buffering data received 6
from a first peer device intended for a second peer device 7
App. Br. 8. The Examiner found that although Zhu holds the data, the 8
period of such holding might be very short. Ans. 16-17. Here we are 9
persuaded by Appellants’ argument because, however short the time 10
duration, holding data is buffering. 11
Claim 24 has a similar limitation to that in claim 10. The remaining 12
claims are argued on the basis of claim 1. 13
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 14
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, and 25-28 under 15
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhu and Chitilian is proper. 16
The rejection of claims 10 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 17
unpatentable over Zhu and Chitilian is improper. 18
The rejection of claims 8, 18, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 19
unpatentable over Zhu, Chitilian, and Kadri is proper. 20
DECISION 21
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 16-19, 21-23, and 25-28 is affirmed. 22
The rejection of claims 10 and 24 is reversed. 23
Appeal 2011-008430
Application 11/158,710

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 1
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 2
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 3
AFFIRMED-IN-PART 4
5
Vsh 6