Ex Parte Bond et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2018

13215244 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/215,244 08/23/2011
69316 7590 05/01/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Barry Clayton Bond
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
332952-US-NP 1833
EXAMINER
CHANG, TIJLIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRY CLAYTON BOND,
REUBEN R. OLINSKY, and GALEN C. HUNT
Appeal2017-009027
Application 13/215 ,244
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-009027
Application 13/215,244
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is an "architecture [that] facilitates seamless
migration of server-hosted code to the client machine and back. Migration is
of a running instance of a process by communicating only a small amount of
data, which makes this feasible over current network (e.g., the Internet)
connection speeds. The web browsing experience for applications is
retained". (Spec. ,r 4).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented system, comprising:
a migration component configured to perform migration
of an instance of a server-hosted application and associated
server application state from a cloud machine to a client
application on a client machine, the server application state
represents an updated document, the client application
configured to operate against the instance of the server-hosted
application to create client application state representing
aggregated user edits to the updated document, the migration
component configured to perform migration of the client
application state from the instance of the server-hosted
application on the client machine to the server-hosted
application on the cloud machine; and
a microprocessor configured to execute computer-
executable instructions that enable at least the migration
component.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, and 9--18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Zhou (US 2005/0203962 Al; published
Sept. 15, 2005) and Hopkins (US 2007/0078950 Al; published Apr. 5,
2007).
2
Appeal2017-009027
Application 13/215,244
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Zhou, Hopkins, and Porter (Donald E.
Porter, Silas Boyd-Wickizer, Jon Howell, Reuben Olinsky, & Galen C.
Hunt, Rethinking the Library OS from the Top Down, ACM (2011)).
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Zhou, Hopkins, Porter, and well-known prior art.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except
for a server hosted on a cloud machine, the server-hosted application
comprising a server application state representing an updated document, and
a client application of the client machine configured to create a client
application state representing aggregated user edits to the updated document
(Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 2-3). The Examiner then finds Hopkins discloses
these limitations (Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 3--4). Therefore, the Examiner
asserts, it would be obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to
synchronize/migrate a client application state with a server as Hopkins
teaches, allowing a user to continue editing a document when disconnected
from a server, as both Hopkins and Zhou teach (Final Act. 10; Ans. 4).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Zhou and Hopkins teaches or suggests Appellants' claimed invention (Br. 4--
1 7). Particularly, Appellants contend Zhou is from a disparate field of
endeavor and thus, there is no motivation to modify Zhou (Br. 6).
Appellants assert Zhou is directed to problems associated with internet
applications for wireless devices, particularly unstable connectivity (Br. 5)
and Hopkins is directed to problems in the field of customer relationship
3
Appeal2017-009027
Application 13/215,244
management (CRM) using the internet to share data real-time, and if an
internet connection is not available, simulating an online session while the
user is offline (Br. 6). Appellants contend these references are contrary to
the claimed invention which solves problems associated with working in
documents of applications such as, e.g., word-processing applications, that a
user uses to navigate to web-based servers in the cloud, allowing continuity
in the event of interruptions to the network connection. Therefore, the
claimed invention relates to "retain[ing] the web browsing experience, rather
than redefining the application as executing entirely on the client machine"
(id.). We do not agree that the references are not analogous art.
Prior art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor
as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field of
endeavor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We
agree with the Examiner that at least item (2) is met in that both Zhou and
Hopkins "are pertinent to the particular problem of maintaining continuity in
experience of a web application across network connectivity interruptions"
(Ans. 17, see also Ans.16, 18, citing, e.g., Zhou ,r 103, Hopkins ,r 10).
Appellants further contend the claimed "server application state
represents an updated document" is not taught or suggested by Zhou or
Hopkins (Br. 6-9). However, as the Examiner finds and we agree, Hopkins
teaches this claim limitation, not Zhou (Ans. 3, citing Hopkins ,r 8; Ans. 20,
citing ,r,r 61, 67). We note Appellants merely cite portions of Zhou and
Hopkins and state, for example, "it simply appears that desired language
taken from throughout both references is selectively cited against the parsed
clauses of the claim, in an apparent attempt to read the references onto the
4
Appeal2017-009027
Application 13/215,244
claimed subject matter," without explaining why the claims are
distinguishable from the cited portions (Br. 9) (see In re Lovin, 652 5 F .3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board reasonably interpreted
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii) (2007) as requiring "more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art")).
Appellants also assert the combination of Zhou and Hopkins does not
teach or suggest "the client application configured to operate against the
instance of the server-hosted application to create client application state
representing aggregated user edits to the updated document" as claimed (Br.
9--12). Particularly, Appellants first contend Zhou does not teach or suggest
the claimed "client application configured to operate against the instance of
the server-hosted application to create client application state" ( emphases
omitted) (Br. 10-11). However, the Examiner cites Hopkins, not Zhou, as
teaching this limitation (Ans. 3, citing Hopkins ,r,r 8, 63, 64). Appellants
then assert Hopkins also does not teach or suggest this limitation as Hopkins
"discloses a type of embedded script in a web page" (i-f 64) referred to in
Appellants' Specification (i-f 32) as a prior art method, which is not a discrete
client application used to create a client application state as claimed (Br. 12).
Appellants, however, have not provided evidence of how utilization of "a
small set of OS abstractions-threads, virtual memory, and I/0 stream,"
recited in paragraph 32 of their Specification as distinct from the prior art
methods, is different from the functional logic 120 of Hopkins (Br. 11-12).
Further, Appellants appear to be reading the claims more narrowly than
written, as the claims merely recite "the client application configured to
5
Appeal2017-009027
Application 13/215,244
operate against the instance of the server-hosted application to create client
application state .... " Appellants also assert to the extent Hopkins is
deemed similar to the claimed subject matter "it should be noted and
acknowledged that there are specific differences not shown in the prior art"
(id.). However, Appellants have not provided those "specific differences."
We also do not agree with Appellants' various statements, without
reasonable argument, that: Hopkins' Multi-Tenant System (MTS) cannot be
construed as the claimed cloud machine (Br. 8, 9, 12); Zhou's servlets do not
teach the server application state represents an updated document (Br. 9);
and Hopkins' MTS is incompatible with Zhou's servlet system (Br. 12).
Appellants have not provided evidence, other than bare statements, that
Hopkins and Zhou do not teach or suggest these features. The Examiner
makes reasonable findings in the Answer addressing these statements, which
Appellants do not specifically rebut (Ans. 20-21, 23, and 19, respectively).
We disagree with Appellants' contentions that Zhou cannot be
construed as migrating the client application state because Zhou "has no
relevance whatsoever to document editing" and "any 'migration' suggested"
by Zhou "cannot be construed as being relevant to the claimed subject
matter" (Br. 13). However, Appellants also state "[i]t remains readily
apparent from the context of the cited passage [ of Zhou] that the rep let is
migrated to provide seamless operation" (id.). Zhou discloses when the
client is disconnected, the local client replica is activated and used, the
user/client has the illusion the network has not been disconnected, and there
is seamless operation. When "switched back to using the server replica,"
then, the client application state is migrated in order to provide this seamless
operation. Zhou ,r,r 103-105 (quoted in Final Action 8.) Thus, without
6
Appeal2017-009027
Application 13/215,244
substantive argument from Appellants as to why Zhou's migration is not
relevant to the claimed migration, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
Zhou's paragraph 31 suggests this limitation (Ans. 2, 20). Further, as noted
above, the aggregated user edits to the updated document are explicitly
taught by Hopkins (Ans. 3, 20). As the Examiner finds, Appellants appear
to be arguing the references individually, and not for what they were cited
(Ans. 21).
Thus, in light of the broad terms recited in the claims and the
arguments presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their
claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Therefore,
on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner's reading of the claims on
the cited combination of references is overly broad, unreasonable, or
inconsistent with the Specification. We find the weight of the evidence
supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 15, argued
for substantially the same reasons (Br. 14--1 7), and dependent claims 2-8,
10-14, and 16-20, not separately argued (Br. 17-18).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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