Ex Parte Waldo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 13, 201511385164 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2015) 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. 11/385,164 03/21/2006 James H. Waldo SUN050930-US-NP 2546 51344 7590 01/13/2015 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK 1000 TOWN CENTER, TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER KRAFT, SHIH-WEI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2194 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JAMES H. WALDO, TIMOTHY J. BLACKMAN, DANIEL J. ELLARD, ROBERT F. SPROULL, JANE A. LOIZEAUX, and MICHAEL P. WARRES ____________________ Appeal 2012-000143 Application 11/385,164 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, and TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims 1–4 and 7–12. Claims 5–6 and 13–20 have been cancelled. The Examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frey (US 6,418,447 B1, July 9, 2002) in combination with Colyer (US 5,903,725, May 11, 1999). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 7–12 for the reason given in the first paragraph of page 4 of the Appeal Brief. In particular, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided Appeal 2012-000143 Application 11/385,164 2 credible evidence to justify the finding that the term “location of the remote object” is properly construed to cover a “location of the server housing the object.” See Br. 4; see also Ans. 14 (“A location can be interpreted to be the location of the server housing the object”). The term “location” is not used so broadly in the Specification. For example, in paragraph 0030, the term “location” is used to describe the information stored in the UUID directory. Because the purpose of the UUID directory is to provide current and precise location information in the event the proxy object live reference is incorrect, the broadest reasonable construction of the term “location,” in view of the Specification, requires information that is sufficient to reach the remote object itself, not just the server housing it. Because the rejection is premised on an unreasonably broad construction of the term “location,” we will not sustain it. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–4 and 7–12 is reversed. REVERSED kme Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation