SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 18, 2022

2020006356 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2022)

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. 15/388,337 12/22/2016 Gang Wang 000005-061200US 9866 58735 7590 01/18/2022 Fountainhead Law Group P.C. Chad R. Walsh 900 LAFAYETTE STREET SUITE 301 SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 EXAMINER MESA, JOEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/18/2022 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): docketing@fountainheadlaw.com klhussain@fountainheadlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GANG WANG and WALTER MAK Appeal 2020-006356 Application 15/388,337 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CATHERINE SHIANG, 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 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. INVENTION The invention is directed to a technique for accessing resources hosted in different domains via a web browser application of a client device. Spec. ¶ 23, Fig. 4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, SAP SE is the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006356 Application 15/388,337 2 computing device, the program comprising sets of instructions for: receiving, from an application operating on the computing device, by a first service instance in a plurality of service instances operating on the computing device, a session identifier associated with a second service instance in the plurality of service instances operating on the computing device and a service instance identifier associated with the second service instance operating on the computing device; sending, by the first service instance operating on the computing device, a response to a web application operating on a client device that includes a collaboration session identifier associated with the collaboration session to the application; receiving, from the web browser application operating on the client device, by a third service instance in the plurality of service instances operating on the computing device, the collaboration session identifier; sending, by the third service instance operating on the computing device, the session identifier and the service instance identifier to the web browser application operating on the client device; receiving, from the web browser application operating on the client device, by the second service instance operating on the computing device, a request for a bidirectional communication channel for the collaboration session, the request comprising the session identifier and the service instance identifier; and creating, by the second service instance operating on the computing device, the bidirectional communication channel between the web browser application operating on the client device and the second service instance operating on the computing device. Appeal 2020-006356 Application 15/388,337 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5 through 9, 12 through 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Seed (US 2016/0088049 A1, published Mar. 24, 2016). Final Act. 3-8. The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Seed, and Egorov (US 2017/0134424 A1, published May 11, 2017). Final Act. 8-11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is in error as Seed does not disclose two instances operating on the same computing device as claimed. Appeal Br. 11-17.3 Further, Appellant argues that Seed does not disclose: [A] computing device/computing system that (1) receives, from the web browser application operating on the client device, by a third service instance in the plurality of service instances operating on the computing device, the collaboration session identifier; (2) sends, by the third service instance operating on the computing device, the session identifier and the service instance identifier to the web browser application operating on the client device; and (3) receives, from the web browser 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 13, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed September 10, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed September 5, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 10, 2020 (“Ans.”). 3 The Appeal Brief does not include page numbers, we identify the pages as counted from the cover sheet of the Appeal Brief. Appeal 2020-006356 Application 15/388,337 4 application operating on the client device, by the second service instance operating on the computing device, a request for a bidirectional communication channel for the collaboration session, the request comprising the session identifier and the service instance identifier. Appeal Br. 17-19. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, finding that Seed teaches that the servers or devices may include one or more service instances and thus teach the clamed feature of a first and second instance operating on the same computing device. Ans. 3-4 (citing Seed ¶¶ 72, 85, 87, Fig. 4, 6).4 Further, with respect to Appellant’s arguments concerning the third service instance, the Examiner states “Applicant second argument with respect to Seed not teaching a third service is similarly rejected based on the teachings above where one or more services are taught in a single device.” Ans. 4. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. Independent claim 1 recites “receiving . . . by a first service instance in a plurality of service instances operating on the computing device, a session identifier associated with a second service instance in a plurality of service instances operating on the computing device, and a service instance identifier associated with the second instance . . . sending, by the first service instance . . . a response to a web application . . . that includes a collaboration session identifier . . . receiving, from the web browser application . . . by a third service instance in a plurality of service instances operating on the computing device, . . . the collaboration session identifier; sending, by the third service instance . . . the session 4 Although not explicitly stated, it appears the Examiner is equating the adaption services (item 302) discussed in paragraph 72 of Seed with the claimed service instances. Appeal 2020-006356 Application 15/388,337 5 identifier and the service instance identifier to the web browser.” Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations. Thus, each of the independent claims recites three instances operating on the computer device (three instances on one device) and a specific series of communications/interactions between these instances and the web browser on the client device. The Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments addresses the third service instance being on the same computing device, but does not address the specific series of communications/interactions between the three instances and with the web browser. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner identifies that the claimed third service instance and the interactions with the web browser and other two service instances is taught in Seed. Final Act. 4 (citing Seed ¶¶ 86, 135). We have reviewed the teaching of Seed cited by the Examiner and do not find that they discuss a third service instance, and we do not find support for the Examiner’s findings. We recognize that Seed, in paragraphs 72 and 73, does discuss more than two service instance, in that Seed discuss more than two adaption capabilities (which suggests three adaption services (equated to the claimed service instance)). However, the Examiner has not shown Seed’s disclosure in paragraphs 72 and 73 of more than two adaptation capabilities teaches the claimed interaction between the three services and the web browser. Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has demonstrated Seed discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 9, 12 through 16, 19, and 20 based upon the disclosure of Seed. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 10, Appeal 2020-006356 Application 15/388,337 6 11, 17, and 18 similarly rely upon the teachings of Seed to teach the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain these rejections for the same reason as discussed with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5-9, 12- 16, 19, 20 102 Seed 1, 2, 5-9, 12- 16, 19, 20 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18 103 Seed, Egorov 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED