JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2021

2021004272 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2021)

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.
16/276,095 02/14/2019 Jack Stephen MORAN P56599 5770
157693 7590 08/04/2021
JPMorgan Chase / Greenblum & Bernstein
1950 Roland Clarke Place
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
MCBETH, WILLIAM C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2021 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JACK STEPHEN MORAN
____________________

Appeal 2021-004272
Application 16/276,095
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3 through 14, and 16 through 20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2021-004272
Application 16/276,095

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for notifying a user of an
operational state of a web application. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A method for notifying a user of an operational state
of a web application, the method comprising:
obtaining, from the web application, a first value that
relates to a data caching state, a second value that relates to an
error state, and a third value that relates to a data retrieval state;
determining, based on the obtained first value, the
obtained second value, and the obtained third value, the
operational state of the web application; and
displaying, on a screen of a user device, information that
relates to the determined operational state,
wherein an execution of the web application is initiated
by an input of a web page Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
address received from the user,
wherein the method is implemented in a React JavaScript
framework by using a set of computer-readable instructions that
is compatible with any React JavaScript application.
REJECTION2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3 through 14, and 16 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee (US 2016/0180567 A1;
published June 23, 2016), Balasubramanian (US 2008/0046100 A1;
published Feb. 21, 2008), Tulchinsky (US 2015/0195340 A1; published July

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 24
2021 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed June 28, 2021 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed September 1, 2020 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed May 13, 2021 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2021-004272
Application 16/276,095

3
9, 2015) and Khatipov et al. (“Hikester - the event management application,”
2018 32nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking
and applications Workshops (WAINA) 462–468, 2018). Ans. 3–13.3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal 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, 3 through 14, and 16 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues:
[I]n Khatipov, the disclosure relates solely to implementing the
“Web part of Hikester . . . as a single page application” (see
Khatipov, section 3.3.2, page 464). In this regard, Appellant
respectfully submits that Khatipov provides no disclosure
whatsoever in relation to “using a set of computer-readable
instructions that is compatible with any React JavaScript
application.”

Appeal Br. 11–12.

3 We note that Appellant disputes whether Khatipov was included in the
Final Rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 7–8. Appellant, in the
Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, responded to the Examiner’s rejection by
addressing Khatipov, thus showing that Appellant was aware that Khatipov
is being applied to claim 1. Regardless, the Examiner has clearly identified
on pages 3 through 17 of the Answer that Khatipov is being applied to reject
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and thus we consider the rejection of claim 1
before us to include Khatipov. We additionally note that the issue of
whether or not this is a new rejection is a petitionable (and not an
appealable) issue which we do not consider. See In re Schneider, 481 F.2d
1350, 1356–57 (CCPA 1973) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA
1967). See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1002.02(c), item 6, § 1207.03(a) (II), and § 1207.03(b).
Appeal 2021-004272
Application 16/276,095

4
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, finding that
“Khatipov discloses implementing ‘Hikester’ as a single page web
application using the React JavaScript (“ReactJS”) framework.” Ans. 14
(emphasis omitted). Further, the Examiner identifies that the React
JavaScript discussed in Khatipov, provides for hooks which are necessarily
compatible with all applications implemented using JavaScript. Ans. 14.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Claim 1 recites the method is implemented “in a
React JavaScript framework by using a set of computer-readable instructions
that is compatible with any React JavaScript application.” Thus, claim 1
recites that method is implemented with a set of instructions, and that the
instructions are compatible with any React JavaScript application. The
Examiner’s analysis focuses on the “set of computer-readable instructions”
as the instruction set used in implementing the method (i.e., pool of available
instructions), and not the specific instructions used to implement the method
(i.e. the lines of code in the program). When interpreted in this manner, we
concur with the Examiner’s findings that Khatipov teaches using React
JavaScript, and that code elements such as the hooks in React JavaScript are
compatible with all applications implemented in React JavaScript.
Because Appellant is arguing is that Khatipov does not teach the “set
of computer-readable instructions” (i.e. the lines of code containing more
than one instruction), but rather a single page web application; we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. We consider a single page
web application to contain a set of instructions (i.e. the lines of code
containing more than one instruction), and as such teach the claim limitation
(see also Appellant’s Specification in paragraph 72 cited as support for “set
Appeal 2021-004272
Application 16/276,095

5
of computer-readable instructions” limitation).4 As such, Appellant’s
arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Lee, Balasubramanian, Tulchinsky, and Khatipov using a set
of computer-readable instructions as recited in claim 1.
Appellant additionally argues, with respect to claim 1, that
even if Khatipov is combined with Lee, Balasubramanian, and
Tulchinsky, the method of claim 1 would not be workable with
respect to any React JavaScript application, because each of
Lee, Balasubramanian, and Tulchinsky discloses application-
specific methodologies for providing application status
information. In this aspect, Appellant respectfully submits that
merely combining these references with Khatipov would not
transform any such application-specific methodology so that it
would be compatible with any React JavaScript application.

Appeal Br. 12 (underlining omitted).
The Examiner finds that the skilled artisan would use Khatipov’s
teachings with the other references as “One of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to combine implementing the software application
using the ReactJS framework to display changes to the user interface of the
software application without reloading the web page.” Ans. 7 (citing
Khatipov 3.3.2). Further, in response to Appellant’s argument in the Brief,
the Examiner states:
Modifying the combination of Lee, Balasubramanian and
Tulchinsky to implement the web application of Lee using the
React JavaScript framework as taught by Khatipov necessarily
transforms the methodology to be compatible with any React

4 We additionally note that Khatipov teaches that one of the advantages of
the system is that it works on many platforms and devices, which supports a
finding that the instructions in the single page web application can be used
with any React JavaScript application. Khatipov 3.1.
Appeal 2021-004272
Application 16/276,095

6
JavaScript application as the state model and functionality for
accessing the state model are part of the React JavaScript
framework.

Ans. 15 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
combining Khatipov’s teachings with the other references. The test set forth
by the Supreme Court in KSR is whether the Examiner has proffered a
reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion of
obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here,
the Examiner has shown that Khatipov teaches using a React JavaScript
framework that is compatible with any React JavaScript application and
cited evidence to support this conclusion. We consider the Examiner’s
rationale to combine the references to be a reasoned rationale and we are not
persuaded Appellant’s unsupported assertion that the references are not
compatible. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1.
With respect to claims 3 through 14 and 16 through 20, Appellant
argues the rejection of these claims is in error for the same reasons as claim
1. Appeal Br. 13–14. As discussed above, we are not persuaded of error in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 3 through 14 and 16 through 20 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Appeal 2021-004272
Application 16/276,095

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–14, 16–
20
103 Lee, Balasubramanian,
Tulchinsky, Khatipov
1, 3–14, 16–
20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED