Ex Parte Veselov

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2009

10280807 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte PAVEL S. VESELOV
_____________

Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807
Technology Center 2400
______________

Decided:1 April 29, 2009
_______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JAY P. LUCAS, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-10, 19, and 20, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

A. Appellant’s invention
Appellant’s invention relates to distributed data sharing systems and
methods and more particularly to whiteboard data sharing. Specification
6:2-3.
Figure 1 shows a system 100 including a single server 110 and
multiple clients 130, 132, and 134, all connected by a network 115. Id. at
9:6-9. The server is a server mode library and the clients are client mode
libraries. Id. at 9:9-10. The Specification explains that “[a]s used herein, the
terms ‘library’ and ‘library mode’ are generally defined as a collection of
subroutines and functions, and are used to link programs together.” Id. at
6:18-19.
The server 110 includes whiteboard (WB) data and table data. Id. at
9:10-11. Whiteboard data 120 can be stored at a remote location from the
server. Id. at 9:11-12.
In one embodiment, a system has only one server that has access to all
of the information about active whiteboards, receives all postings to
whiteboards, and distributes those postings to whiteboard readers upon
request. Id. at 9:12-14. The server can support multiple whiteboards, each
having a unique name. Id. at 9:14-15. Clients that want to either post to a
Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807

3
whiteboard or read from a whiteboard will first identify which whiteboard
they want to access. Id. at 9:15-17.
Generally, any library can be designated as the server, but only one
server can be designated for a system. Id. at 9:22-23. “The first library to
launch will become the server mode library, and all others will default to
client mode libraries.” Id. at 10:22-23.
Appellant’s Figure 3 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807

4
Figure 3 is a block diagram illustrating four applications in
communication across a server library, in accordance with one embodiment
of the present invention. Id. at 10:14-16.
Applications 310, 320, 340, and 350 are operating using one server
mode library (312 in Fig. 3) and a number of client mode libraries (322, 342,
and 352 in Fig. 3). Id. at 10:21-22. The first library to launch will become
the server mode library (312) and all others will default to client mode
libraries. Id. at 10:22-23.

B. The claims
The independent claims are claims 1 and 19, of which claim 1 reads:
1. A method for managing shared data communication,
comprising:
defining a whiteboard space;
detecting a process request to post or read data to the
whiteboard space by a first process, and in response to the
process request,
launching a server mode library for accessing the
whiteboard space;
detecting a next process request to post or read data to the
whiteboard space by a next process, and in response to the next
process request,
launching a client mode library, the client mode library
being in communication with the server mode library to obtain
access to the whiteboard space, wherein each new process
requesting to post or read to the whiteboard space creates a
client mode library and each client mode library is in
communication with a single one of the server mode library.
Claims App., Br. 10.
Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807

5

C. The reference and rejection
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Simonoff US 6,463,460 B1 Oct. 8, 2002
Claims 1-10, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for
anticipation by Simonoff.
Appellant argues the merits of the rejection of claim 1 and treats the
rejections of other claims as standing or falling therewith.

THE ISSUE
The dispositive issue raised by Appellant’s contentions2 (discussed
infra) is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Simonoff’s White Board
server 102 is launched in response to detection of a process request to post
or read data to the whiteboard space by a first process, as required by claim
1.

2 Appellant has the burden to show reversible error by the Examiner in
maintaining the rejection. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”)
(quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

ANALYSIS
Simonoff discloses a system that permits collaboration between
multiple users of a whiteboard. Simonoff, col. 6, ll. 38-44.
Figure 3 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807

7
Figure 3 is a high-level block diagram of selected components of Simonoff’s
computer system. Id. at col. 7, ll. 42-44.
A server host 100, an application host, i.e., object generator, 200, and
client host computers 300a and 300b, are all interconnected to one another
via a LAN or WAN 400. Id. at col. 9, ll. 21-26. Preferably, the server host
100 provides a Web server 101, a White Board server 102, and a generated
object server 103. Id. at col. 9, ll. 29-31.
Client hosts 300a and 300b beneficially each provide a JAVATM-
enabled web browser, while the Web server 101 on server 100 stores a web
page and an associated White Board Applet tag. Id. at col. 9, ll. 36-40.
Figure 8 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807

8

Figure 8 is a high level flowchart showing startup, operation, and
shutdown of the White Board. Id. at col. 14, ll. 64-65.
During step S1, the user on computer 300a, for example, connects to
the web sever 101 operating on server 100 via LAN 400, to which
web server 101 responds by downloading a web page containing the White
Board Applet tag to the JAVATM-enabled web browser running on computer
300. Id. at col. 14, l. 65 to col. 15, l. 3. When the JAVATM-enabled web
Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807

9
browser encounters the White Board Applet tag, the White Board client
applet is downloaded from server 100 to computer 300 during step S2. Id. at
col. 15, ll. 3-6. During step S3, the White Board client 301 initializes and
requests login information from the user as a security precaution. Id. at col.
15, ll. 6-8.
During step S4, the White Board client 301 uploads the login
information, e.g., user name and password, to White Board server 102 via
LAN 400. Id. at col. 15, ll. 8-11. White Board server 102 then determines
whether the user attempting to login is an authorized user or not during step
S5. Id. at col. 15, ll. 11-13. In the event that the login information is
acceptable, all features of the White Board client 301 running on computer
300 are activated during step S6 (id. at col. 15, ll. 13-15), causing a fully
operational White Board to be displayed to the user. Id. at col. 17, ll. 28-29.
The Examiner reads the first-recited “process request” on a user’s
login request and the recited “server mode library” on White Board server
102. Answer 4. More particularly, the Examiner concluded that the claim
term “launch” means “to start a program” (id. at 7) and found that “the
White Board server exists as an application on the server host, however, it is
not started or activated until the request for login is received in order to
access the White Board.” Id. We understand the Examiner’s phrase “the
request for login is received” to refer to receipt of the user-entered login
information by White Board server 102 from White Board 301 (Simonoff,
col. 15, ll. 8-10).
The Examiner further explained that
Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807

10
[a]lso, the features of the White Board client are not activated
until the user is authenticated by the White Board server.
Although the user may have the White Board client applet
downloaded to their computer, it is not available for use until
after the White Board server authenticates the requesting user
(column 15, lines 1-5, column 17, lines 28-30).
Answer 7.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s position is unsound
because “White Board server 102 must already be operating in order to
receive the login information from the White Board client 301” (Reply Br.
2) and because “Simonoff does not specify [the] conditions upon which the
White Board server 102 is launched.” Id. at 3. While it is true that the
White Board applet on the client is not activated by the server until after the
server authenticates the user, that does not imply that the White Board server
201 is not started prior to such authentication.
If, on the other hand, the Examiner is proposing to somehow read the
recited “launching a server mode library” language on a function that White
Board server 201 performs after it authenticates a user, that position should
be clearly stated and explained.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 for anticipation by
Simonoff is reversed, as is the rejection on that ground of claims 2-10, 19,
and 20, whose merits are not separately argued.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision that claims 1-10, 19, and 20 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Simonoff is reversed.
Appeal 2008-3368
Application 10/280,807

11

REVERSED

babc

MARTINE PENILLA & GENCARELLA, LLP
710 LAKEWAY DRIVE
SUITE 200
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085