11035424 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

Ex Parte Stirbu

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 2013

11035424 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/035,424 01/12/2005 Vlad Stirbu 915-007.130 6457 4955 7590 02/27/2013 WARE, FRESSOLA, MAGUIRE & BARBER LLP BRADFORD GREEN, BUILDING 5 755 MAIN STREET, P O BOX 224 MONROE, CT 06468 EXAMINER WOOLCOCK, MADHU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2013 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 ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte VLAD STIRBU ____________________ Appeal 2010-009129 Application 11/035,424 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1, 6-16, 18, 19, and 21-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2-5, 17, and 20 have been cancelled. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellant, the invention relates to a system and method for remoting a user interface of an application between a server executing Appeal 2010-009129 Application 11/035,424 2 the application and at least one client on which a representation of the user interface is to be rendered (Abstract). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: generating a representation of a user interface of an application, which user interface is to be remoted between a server that executes said application and at least one client on which said representation of said user interface is to be rendered, at said server; and transferring said representation of said user interface to said at least one client, wherein said representation of said user interface is a memory model representation of said user interface, wherein said memory model representation is transferable to said at least one client by first transferring an initial state of said memory model representation to said at least one client as a binary encoded Document Object Model object, and then transferring only information on changes in said memory model representation to said at least one client as extensible markup language path language objects. References Mansour et al. (Mansour) US 2002/0111995 A1 Aug. 15, 2002 Saint-Hilaire et al. (Saint-Hilaire) US 7,299,304 B2 Nov. 20, 2007 Rose, M., The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core, “RFC 3080,” Mar. 2001. Eastlake, D., XML-Signature Syntax and Processing, RFC-3075,” Apr. 2001. Appeal 2010-009129 Application 11/035,424 3 Rejections (1) Claims 1, 8, 9, 11-16, 18, 19, 21, 24-26, 28-31, 34, 36, 39, and 41-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mansour and RFC 3075. (2) Claims 6, 22, 32, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mansour, RFC 3075, and RFC 3080. (3) Claims 7, 23, 22, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mansour, RFC 3075, RFC 3080, and Saint-Hilaire. (4) Claims 10, 27, 35, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mansour, RFC 3075, and Saint-Hilaire. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2010-009129 Application 11/035,424 4 ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 8, 11-16, 18, 19, 21, 24-25, 28-31, 36, and 41- 43 Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Mansour and RFC 3075 because Mansour fails to disclose use of XML, XPATH, or DOM in remoting a user interface from a server to a client (App. Br. 8-9); there is no motivation to combine Mansour and RFC 3075 (App. Br. 9-10). Specifically, Appellant contends Mansour only discloses or mentions XML or XPATH in one paragraph and nowhere else within the reference (App. Br. 8-9). According to Appellant, Mansour only describes that “XML can be used to ‘employ a stateless browser-based user interface to interact with a server-based application’” (App. Br. 9). Appellant argues, therefore, the server is not a generated representation of a user interface of an application executed by a server (id.). Thus, the context of how XML is used is in an entirely different environment with a different architecture (id.). Appellant also contends no suggestion or motivation to combine Mansour and RFC 3075 exists since there is no link between the two references (App. Br. 9-10). Appellant states Mansour does not disclose a method of transferring interface representations that use XML, XPATH, or DOM, and RFC 3075 is directed to XML digital signature process rules and syntax (App. Br. 10). Therefore, RFC 3075 does not disclose sufficient information to lead a skilled person to have found it obvious to combine that reference with the disclosure of Mansour to arrive at the claimed invention (App. Br. 10). Appeal 2010-009129 Application 11/035,424 5 Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mansour and RFC 3075 teaches or suggests “wherein said memory model representation is transferable to said at least one client by first transferring an initial state of said memory model representation to said at least one client as a binary encoded Document Object Model object, and then transferring only information on changes in said memory model representation to said at least one client as extensible markup language path language objects,” as recited in claim 1? Issue 1b: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Mansour and RFC 3075? ANALYSIS We agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasons, and adopt them as our own. We emphasize that Mansour teaches, or at least suggests, web interfaces that utilize “WAP, hypertext markup language (HTML), or any other extensive markup language (XML) derivative” (Ans. 35). As such, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Mansour teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation. Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that no suggestion or motivation to combine Mansour and RFC 3075 exists (App. Br. 9-10). Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion, and, again, adopt them as our own (Ans. 36-37). Appeal 2010-009129 Application 11/035,424 6 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 9, 26, 34, and 39 Appellant argues Mansour fails to disclose that a user interface description obeys the XML format, as it is silent on utilizing XML in any context, except when a stateless browser-based user interface interacts with a server-based application (App. Br. 10). For the same reasons as set forth with respect to Issue 1, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own (Ans. 37-38). CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Mansour and RFC 3075 teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claim 1 and claims 8, 9, 11-16, 18, 19, 21, 24-26, 28-31, 36, 39, and 41-43, not separately argued (see App. Br. 10-13). Nor did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings and suggestions of Mansour and RFC 3075. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 8, 9, 11-16, 18, 19, 21, 24-26, 28-31, 36, 39, and 41-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Mansour and RFC 3075. ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 6, 22, 32 and 37 Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Mansour, RFC 3075, and RFC 3080 because despite Mansour’s statement that the invention “‘may be practiced in conjunction with any number of data transmission protocols,’” Mansour does not disclose “the server can transfer the representation of the user interface to the client via a unidirectional channel Appeal 2010-009129 Application 11/035,424 7 that is multiplexed by a BEEP (Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol) (App. Br. 11). Appellant asserts Mansour fails to disclose using XML or XPATH in transferring the representation of the user interface as a memory model and RFC 3080’s disclosure of BEEP permits simultaneous and independent exchanges of messages usually structured using XML (App. Br. 11-12). These assertions indicate it would not be possible to apply the teachings of RFC 3080 to Mansour (id.). Additionally, Appellant argues no motivation is provided in the disclosure of RFC 3080 for combining its teachings with Mansour (App. Br. 12). Issue 2: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Mansour, RFC 3075, and RFC 3080? ANALYSIS Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in combining the teachings and suggestions of the references. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. We further add that such combination is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Mansour, RFC 3075, and RFC 3080 teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 6, 22, 32, and 37. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6, 22, 32, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Mansour, RFC 3075, and RFC 3080. Appeal 2010-009129 Application 11/035,424 8 ISSUE 3 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 7, 23, 33, and 38 Appellant asserts the invention as recited in claim 7 is not obvious over Mansour, RFC 3075, RFC 3080, and Saint-Hilaire because of its dependence on claims 1 and 6 and the respective arguments set forth for each of those claims (App. Br. 12). For similar reasons, Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 23, 33, and 38 are also not obvious over the references. As set forth above in Issues 1 and 2, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting the disputed claims. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7, 23, 33, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Mansour, RFC 3075, RFC 3080, and Saint-Hilaire. ISSUE 4 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 10, 27, 35, and 40 Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Mansour, RFC 3075, and Saint-Hilaire because Saint-Hilaire does not teach or suggest basing the remoting of a user interface representation from a server to a client at least partially in accordance with the Universal Plug and Play standard (App. Br. 13). According to Appellant, Saint-Hilaire “does not discuss how exactly this exemplary software service component could be used” in Mansour’s system or why it would be used and the Examiner has not provided an explanation (App. Br. 13). Additionally, Appellant argue Appeal 2010-009129 Application 11/035,424 9 although Saint-Hilaire cites a Universal Plug and Play module, it does not recite the Universal Plug and Play standard. Issue 4: Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining the teachings and suggestions of Mansour, RFC 3075, and Saint-Hilaire? ANALYSIS We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. Again, we add that such a combination is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mansour, RFC 3075, and Saint-Hilaire teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 10, 27, 35, and 40, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10, 27, 35, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Mansour, RFC 3075, and Saint-Hilaire. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 11-16, 18, 19, 21, 24-26, 28-31, 34, 36, 39, and 41-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mansour and RFC 3075 is affirmed. Appeal 2010-009129 Application 11/035,424 10 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 22, 32, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mansour, RFC 3075, and RFC 3080 is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 23, 22, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mansour, RFC 3075, RFC 3080, and Saint-Hilaire is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 27, 35, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mansour, RFC 3075, and Saint-Hilaire 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) (2011). AFFIRMED cam