Ex Parte Yaffe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

12656368 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016)

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.
12/656,368 01/27/2010 Lior Yaffe JAR-4041-74 5081
23117 7590 12/13/2016
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
HAILE, AWET A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIOR YAFFE
Appeal 2016-002075
Application 12/656,368
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOYCE CRAIG, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
This invention is directed to component which manipulates packets
communicated between a terminal emulator and a mainframe computer. See
Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
1. A system having at least one processor and a
mainframe injection component (MIC) for manipulating at least
Appeal 2016-002075
Application 12/656,368
one data packet communicated between at least one emulator and
at least one mainframe, wherein the MIC comprises:
a. a packet processor, configured to receive the at least
one data packet, to manipulate, via the at least one processor, the
at least one received data packet to produce at least one modified
data packet and to inject the at least one modified data packet
into the communication between the at least one emulator and
the at least one mainframe;
b. wherein the packet processor is further configured to
retrieve at least one processing instruction from a repository
according to at least one pre-defmed processing rule and to apply
the at least one processing instruction on the at least one received
data packet to produce the at least one modified data packet, the
at least one processing instruction modifying the received data
packet(s) to change content of one or more fields of a mainframe
screen displayed on the emulator(s).
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6, and 8 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Housel (US 6,453,343 Bl), Neuman
(US 2002/0162026 Al) and Er (US 2010/0325097 Al). Final Action 3-20.1
The Examiner has rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Housel, Neuman, Er, and Ly (US 2006/0017954 Al).
Final Action 20—21.
The Examiner has rejected claims 21 through 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Housel, Neuman, Er, and
Atashband (US 2008/0153599 Al). Final Action 21—22.
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 6,
2015, the Reply Brief filed December 11, 2015, Final Action mailed August
21, 2014, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 6, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-002075
Application 12/656,368
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6, and 8 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mochida (US 2007/0239889 Al),
Housel, and Er. Final Action 22—29.
The Examiner has rejected claims 16 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mochida, Housel, Neuman, and Er.
Final Action 29—34.
The Examiner has rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mochida, Housel, Er, and Ly. Final Action 34—35.
The Examiner has rejected claims 21 through 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mochida, Housel, Er and
Atashband. Final Action 35—36.
ISSUES
Rejections based upon Housel, Neuman, and Er.
Appellant argues, on pages 11 through 16 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 2 through 3 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 6 and 8 through 20 based upon Housel, Neuman, and Er is in
error. These arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in combining the teachings of Housel,
Neuman, and Er as the combination would render Housel
inoperable for its intended purpose?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of
Housel, Neuman, and Er teach modifying received data
packets to change content of one or more fields of a
mainframe screen displayed on an emulator?
3
Appeal 2016-002075
Application 12/656,368
Appellant’s arguments, on pages 16 and 17 of the Appeal Brief,
directed to the obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 21 through 23 present
us with the same issue as claim 1.
Rejections based upon Mochida, House!, and Er.
Appellant argues, on pages 7 through 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages
2 through 3 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 6 and 8 through 15 based upon Mochida, Housel, and Er is in error.
These arguments present us with the following issues:
3. Did the Examiner err in combining the teachings of
Mochida, Housel, and Er as the combination would render
Housel inoperable for its intended purpose and Mochida
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of
Mochida, Housel, and Er teach modifying received data
packets to change content of one or more fields of a
mainframe screen displayed on an emulator?
Appellant’s arguments, on pages 22 and 23 of the Appeal Brief,
directed to the obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 16 through 23, present
us with the same issue as claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 23.
4
Appeal 2016-002075
Application 12/656,368
Rejections based upon House!, Neuman, and Er.
Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue are premised upon the
assertion that the intended purpose of Housel is to reconstruct the original
data stream for transmission over a low speed communication link. App. Br.
14, Reply Br. 2. Based upon this assertion Appellant concludes that
changing Housel to modify data would destroy the intended purpose as the
reconstructed data would not be the original data stream. App. Br. 15
The Examiner responds by finding that the combination would not
render Housel inoperable for its intended purpose as in combination the
modification of the displayed screen may be performed after the data packet
is restored. Answer 3. Further, the Examiner finds the suggestion to
combine the teachings is found in Er. Answer 4—5. We concur with the
Examiner. Further, we consider the transmission of existing terminal
emulator protocols in a low speed communication system by reducing the
volume of data to be Housel’s intended purpose, and we do not consider
modifying the data stream as proposed by the Examiner to render this
purpose inoperable. Thus, Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue assert that Er
teaches that the fields changed are on a screen, but does not disclose that this
is performed by modifying received packets. App. Br. 16. The Examiner
responds by identifying that it is the combination of Housel and Er which
teaches the disputed limitation of the claim. Answer 5—6. We concur with
the Examiner and are not persuaded of error in these findings as Appellant’s
arguments do not address the combined teachings. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of 1 through 6 and 8 through 20 based
5
Appeal 2016-002075
Application 12/656,368
upon Housel, Neuman, and Er. As Appellant’s arguments directed to the
rejection of claims 7 and 21 through 23 do not present us with additional
issues, we similarly sustain the rejection of these claims.
Rejections based upon Mochida, Housel and Er
Appellant asserts on page 19 of the Appeal Brief, that the Examiner’s
combination of Er, Mochida, and Housel would render Housel inoperable
for its intended purpose. We are not persuaded of error by this assertion, as
Appellant has not provided further rationale. In as much as Appellant
intended to import the arguments discussed above with respect to the first
issue, we are not persuaded as discussed above.
Appellant further asserts that the combination would render Mochida
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and require substantial reconstruction
and redesign. App. Br. 20-21, Reply Br. 4. Appellant reasons the
combination would require the content of Mochida’s TCP packet to be
changed, changing the TCP data packet length which would change the
operations of Mochida. App. Br. 20-21. Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded
of error by these arguments as they are speculative (i.e., there is insufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the combination would require that the TCP
packet data length to be changed). Further, Appellant’s argument that the
modification would require substantial reconstruction is not well taken. As
Appellant acknowledged, Mochida teaches changing the ACK field in the
packet, thus teaching changing data in the packet, we do not consider it to be
significant that data in other fields is also changed. Accordingly,
Appellant’s arguments directed to the third issue have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
6
Appeal 2016-002075
Application 12/656,368
Appellant’s arguments directed to the fourth issue are the same as
discussed above with respect to the second issue. As discussed above with
respect to the second issue we are not persuaded of error. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 6, and 8
through 15 based upon Mochida, Housel, and Er.
As Appellant’s arguments directed to the rejection of claims 7 and 16
through 23 do not present us with additional issues, we similarly sustain the
rejection of these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 23 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7