Ex Parte MurataDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 11, 201714275313 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2017) 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. 14/275,313 05/12/2014 John Murata 5607.0160002 (P2580USC2) 6623 63975 7590 10/13/2017 NTFRNF KFNNT FR FtOT DNTFTN Rr FOY PT T f EXAMINER 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 TRUONG, LECHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2194 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/13/2017 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): e-office @ skgf.com Apple-eOA @ skgf.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN MURAT A1 Appeal 2016-003220 Application 14/275,313 Technology Center 2100 Before: CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Appellant names Apple, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-003220 Application 14/275,313 The present invention relates generally to a network based administration protocol. See Spec. 2:3—4. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for obtaining internal server data from a server, comprising: in the server, performing operations for: determining whether a path name received in a request from a client includes an identity of a container of the server, the container comprising data that includes types, names, and values representing an internal operating state of the server; when the path name does not include the identity of a container: transmitting a corresponding hypertext markup language (HTML) page to the client; and when the path name includes the identity of a container: processing the path name to retrieve a snapshot of the container, the snapshot representing a current state of the data in the container; generating, from the snapshot, a response; and transmitting the response to the client. Appellant appeals the following rejections:2 Rl. Claims 1—20 are rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (see Final Act. 2—4); R2. Claims 1, 5, 7—9, 13, and 15—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saito (US 6,557,024 Bl, Apr. 29, 2003), Nori (US 5,999,943, Dec. 7, 1999), and Amstein (US 5,793,966, Aug. 11, 1998) (id. at 4—10); R3. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 2 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (see Ans. 3). 2 Appeal 2016-003220 Application 14/275,313 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saito, Nori, Amstein, and Szymanski (US 5,574,903, Nov. 12, 1996) {id. at 10-11); and R4. Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saito, Nori, Amstein, and Brooks (US 7,209,953 B2, Apr. 24, 2007) {id. at 11-12). 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 Double patenting Rejection At the outset, we observe that Appellant presents no arguments on appeal regarding the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1—20. We note that arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)( iv) (2014). Therefore, we pro forma affirm the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-20. Rejection under § 103(a) Claims 1, 4, 5, 7—9, 12, 13, 15—17, and 20 Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Nori teaches or suggests data representing an internal operating state of the server, as set forth in claim 1? Appellant contends that “Nori is limited to describing large objects (LOBs) associated with a database” (App. Br. 10), but “Nori does not describe or suggest ‘the container comprising data . . . representing an 3 Appeal 2016-003220 Application 14/275,313 internal operating state of the server’” (id. at 12). We disagree with Appellant. The Examiner finds in Nori “[e]ach LOB locator stores information about a corresponding LOB . . . including] information about the specific accesses that triggered the generation of the in-memory locators” (Ans. 14). The Examiner further finds that “the in-memory locator for an internal LOB includes the following fields: ‘snapshot-id’ [value]: The snapshot-id field contains a value that indicates the consistent read version of the LOB [internal state of server] that is associated with the LOB locator” (id. at 15). In essence, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Nori’s LOB locator contains many fields, one of which is a snapshot-id that represents the internal state of the server. Lor example, Nori discloses that “[t]he first set of data includes a locator for a LOB . . . The locator includes a LOB identifier . . . and snapshot information that identifies a particular version of the LOB” (2:23—27). Nori further discloses that “[a] snapshot of the database reflects all changes committed to the database as of a particular point in time . . . The server reads the snapshot-id value from the locator and determines which version of the requested LOB data to supply to the client” (7:28-47). In other words, the Examiner interprets at least Nori’s snapshot-id field as data representing an internal operating state of the server. Although Appellant contend that “Nori does not describe or suggest ‘the container comprising data . . . representing an internal operating state of the server’” (App. Br. 12), Appellant’s contention fails to specifically rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding Nori’s snapshot-id or show how the claimed values representing an internal operating state of the 4 Appeal 2016-003220 Application 14/275,313 server are distinguishable. Given Appellant’s silence regarding Nori’s snapshot-id, we find unavailing Appellant’s aforementioned contentions. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9 and 17 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims, except as noted below. See App. Br. 10-18. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 7—9, 12, 13, 15—17, and 20. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Szymanski teaches or suggests modifying information included in the container based on the path name, as set forth in claim 2? Appellant contends that “Szymanski is limited to describing [] requests for actions on a file manager and does not mention path names, containers, or information included in containers[, therefore,] Szymanski does not describe or suggest ‘modifying information included in the container based on the path name’” (App. Br. 15). The Examiner finds “Szymanski teaches . . . miscellaneous actions . . . [including] PathnameResolve takes a relative pathname and resolved it into a canonical FSSpecification. ... In addition[], Nori teaches before performing an operation on an external LOB, the client must provide the full directory path to where the external LOB resides” (Ans. 16). In essence, the Examiner relies upon the combined teachings of Szymanski and Nori to teach/suggest the claimed “modifying information . . . based on the path 5 Appeal 2016-003220 Application 14/275,313 name,” however Appellant merely argues that Szymanski alone fails to teach/suggest this feature. Appellant’s argument against Szymanski separately from the other cited references, specifically Nori, does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425—26 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 2. Appellant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 10 and 18 rely on the same arguments as for claim 2, and Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims 3,11, and 19. See App. Br. 13—15. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19. DECISION We pro forma affirm the Examiner’s Double Patenting rejection of claims 1—20. We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 1—5, 7—13, and 15—20. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation