Ryan J. Thompson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2019

14642898 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2019)

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.
14/642,898 03/10/2015 Ryan J. Thompson KORD001 6884
124782 7590 09/27/2019
Philip McKay
Hawley Troxell
P.O. Box 1617
Boise, ID 83701-1617
EXAMINER
CHEN, ZHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2019 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):
patentdocket@hawleytroxell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RYAN J. THOMPSON and JUSTIN GRANT
____________

Appeal 2018-008348
Application 14/642,898
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN,,
Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–33, which constitutes all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Kordata, Inc. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008348
Application 14/642,898

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention
A computing system environment executes platform-
independent instructions to combine object data of a plurality of
objects into a platform-independent object. Such objects of the
plurality of objects may, for example, include form, entity and
schema objects. Platform-dependent instructions comprising a
set of one or more platform-specific instructions to display and
operate on the platform-independent object are executed on a
specific platform type associated with the platform-dependent
instructions. By decoupling the hardcoded functionality from
easily created and edited object portions of the application
design, rapid deployment and execution of customized
functionality across multiple distinct platforms is thereby
enabled.
Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A system for rapid deployment and execution of
customized functionality across multiple distinct platforms
comprising:
a database coupled to a network, the database having
stored therein object data of a plurality of objects;
a set of platform-independent instructions comprising
instructions to combine at least a portion of the object data of the
plurality of objects into a platform independent object;
a set of platform-dependent instructions comprising a set
of one or more platform-specific instructions to convert and
otherwise perform operations on the platform-independent
object using a specific platform type associated with the
platform-dependent instructions;
at least one computing processor, the computing processor
configured to communicate with the database over the network;
and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one computing
processor, the at least one memory having stored therein
Appeal 2018-008348
Application 14/642,898

3
instructions which when executed by the at least one computing
processor perform a process for rapid deployment and execution
of customized functionality across multiple distinct platfom1s
including:
combining, using at least a portion of the set of platform-
independent instructions, the object data of the plurality of
objects into a platform-independent object;
deploying the platform-specific set of instructions to a first
platform of the specific platform type of the set of platform-
specific instructions;
converting, by performing at least a portion of the set of
platform-dependent instructions on the platform-independent
object by the first platform, at least a portion of the platform-
independent object into a platform-dependent object: and
displaying at least a portion of the platform-dependent
object by the first platform.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, 10–12, 19, 21–23, 30, 32, and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ahmed (US 2012/0047425 A1;
Feb. 23, 2012) and Tseitlin (US 2007/0250828 A1; Oct. 25, 2007). Final
Act. 3–11.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 13, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ahmed, Tseitlin, and Akkiraju (US 2010/0077386 A1;
Mar. 25, 2010). Final Act. 12–14.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 14, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ahmed, Tseitlin, and Akkiraju, and Nori (US
2006/0195460 A1; Aug. 31, 2006). Final Act. 14–16.
The Examiner rejected claims 4–6, 15–17, and 26–28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ahmed, Tseitlin, and Nori. Final Act. 16–21.
Appeal 2018-008348
Application 14/642,898

4
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 18, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ahmed, Tseitlin, Nori, and Dengler (US 2007/0130205
A1; June 7, 2007). Final Act. 21–24.
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 20, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ahmed, Tseitlin, and Doganata (US 2007/0209034 A1;
Sept. 6, 2007. Final Act. 24–25.

ANALYSIS
THE § 103 REJECTION BASED ON AHMED AND TSEITLIN
Claims 1, 8, 10–12, 19, 21–23, 30, 32, and 33
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that claims 1, 8, 10–12, 19, 21–23, 30, 32, and 33 are
unpatentable over Ahmed and Tseitlin.
Appellant contends that the cited combination fails to teach or suggest
“combining, using at least a portion of the set of platform-independent
instructions, the object data of the plurality of objects into a platform-
independent object,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 11–12; see also
claims 12 and 23 (reciting similar limitations). Specifically, Appellant
identifies that the Examiner relies on Ahmed’s web content file as the
recited platform-independent object and the corresponding reference to the
location of the data, or universal resource locator (URL), as the platform-
independent instructions. App. Br. 12. As such, Appellant maintains that,
under the Examiner’s reading, Ahmed must teach using the URL, i.e.
platform-independent instructions, to combine object data of the plurality of
objects into a web content file, i.e. platform-independent object. App.
Br. 12. According to Appellant, Ahmed’s URL does not combine the object
Appeal 2018-008348
Application 14/642,898

5
data and “fails to operate on objects at all.” Further, Appellant argues that
“[a] URL, in common parlance, is not comprised of, nor does it include any
instructions which can operate on objects at all.” App. Br. 12.
On the other hand, the Examiner determines that
Ahmed figure 4 is an example of a web content file. A web
content file is a platform independent object (Ahmed [0071]) that
is used to generate a web page (Ahmed [0069]), which may
include instructions to combine external data within the web
page. In Ahmed figure 4, the URL to the PHP script Data.php
combines a Data form within a generated web page.
Ans. 26. The Examiner further explains that “an example of a URL can be
.php [such as the php in Fig. 4 of Ahmed]. PHP is a scripting language used
to combine any type of data with a generated web page.” Id. According to
the Examiner, “[t]he claim does not clearly define the combining operation,
and therefore, does not explicitly exclude combining by reference” and
“Ahmed figure 4 shows how a URL is used to combine external data into a
web content file.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner that a .php script is known in the art to
combine data with a generated web page and, thus, could satisfy the recited
combining. The issue before us, then, is whether Ahmed’s Data.php script
in Figure 4 teaches or suggests combining object data into a platform-
independent object, such as the web content file or the virtualization layer
(VL), which is converted to the platform-dependent object that is displayed,
as required by the claimed invention. Ahmed’s Figure 4 is reproduced
below including the Examiner’s identified Data.php script, as highlighted.
Appeal 2018-008348
Application 14/642,898

6

Ahmed describes “FIG. 4 illustrates one example of a web content file 30
including a VL that uses tags.” Ahmed ¶ 87. We note that Ahmed generally
appears to function in a similar manner to the disclosed invention. For
example, tags are used to create the VL in Ahmed and similar tags are used
to create the platform-independent object of the disclosed invention.
Compare Ahmed ¶ 87–89 with Spec. ¶ 97. Ahmed, however, provides no
further discussion or disclosure with respect to the depicted Data.php script.
As such, based on the record before us, it is unclear whether Ahmed’s
Appeal 2018-008348
Application 14/642,898

7
Data.php script combines the object data into the recited platform-
independent object, which is converted to the platform-dependent object that
is displayed, as required by the claimed invention. In order for us to sustain
the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to resort to impermissible
speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales to supply deficiencies in
the factual bases of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017 (CCPA 1967). As such, based on the record before us, we are
persuaded that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that that Ahmed and
Tseitlin combined teach or suggest the limitations of independent claims 1,
12, and 23.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
independent claims 1, 12, and 23, as well dependent claims 8, 10, 11, 19, 21,
22, 30, 32, and 33, as unpatentable over Ahmed and Tseitlin.

THE REMAINING § 103 REJECTIONS
Claims 2–7, 9, 13–18, 20, 24–29, and 31
As discussed above, based on the record before us, the Examiner has
not sufficiently shown that the combination of Ahmed and Tseitlin teaches
or suggests the limitations of independent claims 1, 12, and 23. The
Examiner does not find the additionally cited prior art cures the deficiencies
of Ahmed and Tseitlin. Accordingly, we similarly reverse the rejection of
claims 2–7, 9, 13–18, 20, 24–29, and 31, which depend directly or indirectly
from one of claims 1, 12, and 23.

Appeal 2018-008348
Application 14/642,898

8
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–33.

REVERSED