Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 14, 20212021004774 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 16/429,704 06/03/2019 Johan Kristiansson 9900-28698US2 2447 146825 7590 10/14/2021 Sage Patent Group/Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson PO BOX 30789 RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789 EXAMINER NAOREEN, NAZIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2458 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/14/2021 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): instructions@sagepat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHAN KRISTIANSSON and KARL-JOHAN LUNDKVIST ____________ Appeal 2021-004774 Application 16/429,704 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–14, 16, 17, 19–24, and 31. Claims 3, 6, 15, 18, and 25–30 are canceled. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-004774 Application 16/429,704 2 The present invention relates generally to executing a web application and adding an icon associated with the web application. See Spec. Abstr. Claim 13, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 13. A method of managing execution of a web application, implemented by a user device, the method comprising: obtaining the web application through a web browser executed on the user device; transmitting a request, to an application server, requesting that a process be associated with the web application, wherein the process is executed at the application server; adding an icon associated with the web application to a user interface of the user device, wherein the icon is associated with code executed by the user device to change appearance of the icon in response to receiving a notification; closing the web application on the user device by terminating execution of the web application by the user device, wherein the code continues to be executed by the user device after the execution of the web application is terminated; following terminated execution of the web application, changing the appearance of the icon in response to receiving the notification from the process executed by the application server. Appellant appeals the following rejections: R1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19–23, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Marshall (US 7,275,089 B1, Sept. 25, 2007) and Karmakar (US 8,045,236 B2, Oct. 25, 2011). Final Act. 3–15. R2. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Marshall, Karmakar, and Vuong (US 2010/0223569 A1, Sept. 2, 2010). Final Act. 15–16. Appeal 2021-004774 Application 16/429,704 3 R3. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Marshall, Karmakar, and Arner (US 8,341,595 B2, Dec. 25, 2012). Final Act. 16–17. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Representative claim 13 recites, inter alia, wherein the code [associated with an icon] continues to be executed by the user device after execution of the web application is terminated [and] following terminated execution of the web application, changing the appearance of the icon. See claim 13. Although the Examiner finds that Marshall teaches “execute the code to change the appearance of the icon in response to receiving the notification” (see Final Act. 4), the Examiner admits that Marshall does not teach that this step is being performed following terminated execution of the web application, as required by representative claim 13. Id. Instead, the Examiner relies upon Karmakar to disclose this feature. Final Act. 4–5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that “Karmakar’s system includes a background process which updates the internal data of the application when it is closed or inactive to provide notifications.” See id. at 5. However, Appellant contends that in Karmakar “if a received (pushed content) message is directed to a closed application (execution is terminated), then the message router stores the pushed content message in the background queue . . . until a user restarts execution of the closed application.” Appeal Br. 9. As a result, Appellant emphasizes that Appeal 2021-004774 Application 16/429,704 4 Karmakar “expressly teaches . . . that the user interface cannot be changed while the application is closed.” Id. at 10. We agree with Appellant. For example, although Karmaker discloses that there are “updates to the internal data of the application . . . while the application is closed” (Karmakar 7:4–6), Karmakar also notes that “[b]ackground rules, in contrast, restrict executable operations from a script. For example, user interface operations cannot be executed when the application is closed.” Karmakar 9:20–22. In other words, although Karmakar updates the internal data by queuing notifications, the Examiner has not shown that Karmakar changes the appearance of the icon on the user interface when the application is closed, as required by the claims. Instead, “[w]hen the application is subsequently started, [Karmakar’s] application processes the notifications stored in its queue” (Karmakar 7:1–2 (emphasis added)), but when the application is closed, user interface executable operations are restricted. Id. at 9:20–22. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Marshall combined with Karmakar teaches following terminated execution of the web application, changing the appearance of the icon, as recited in each of the independent claims 1 and 13. The Examiner has not found that any of the other references of record teach this feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–14, 16, 17, 19–24, and 31. Appeal 2021-004774 Application 16/429,704 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–14, 16, 17, 19–24, and 31 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19–23, 31 103 Marshall, Karmakar 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19–23, 31 12 103 Marshall, Karmakar, Vuong 12 24 103 Marshall, Karmakar, Arner 24 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–14, 16, 17, 19–24, 31 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation