10609981 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

Ex Parte Adema et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 2013

10609981 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

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. 10/609,981 06/30/2003 Roger Lee Adema RPS920030033US1 8747 63638 7590 09/23/2013 STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION 13100 WORTHAM CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 245 HOUSTON, TX 77065 EXAMINER PHAN, TUANKHANH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2013 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 ROGER LEE ADEMA, JOHN CHRISTIAN FLUKE, JARRAD ANDREW GILES, and RICHARD GAINES WHITLEY ____________ Appeal 2011-004421 Application 10/609,981 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004421 Application 10/609,981 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-3, 6-12, and 33-42. Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION This invention relates to "the input and output of data with non- standard I/O [Input/Output] devices for World Wide Web applications and pages." (Spec. 1). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for providing non-standard input data from a non- standard input device to a standard browser having a program on a client in communication with the non-standard input device directly over a standard socket to a server having a configuring program over a network the method comprising: receiving non-standard input data from the non-standard input device at the client; reading the received non-standard input data by one or more device drivers at the client which are associated with the non-standard input data; providing the read non-standard input data to an application at the client, the application capable of opening the socket to the program and able to communicate with the non- standard input device; receiving from the application . . . equivalent standard input data at the program and receiving from the configuring program configuration instructions to configure the program; Appeal 2011-004421 Application 10/609,981 3 providing received input data from the program to populate one or more respective fields in a browser form in relation to received configuration instructions; and sending the browser form to a web application on the server without the web application caching data. REJECTIONS R1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 33-35, and 39-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wagner (US 6,745,259 B2). R2. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 8, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings and suggestions of Wagner and Sakai (US Patent Application Publication 2003/0061021 A1). R3. The Examiner rejected claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings and suggestions of Wagner and Davidson (US 4,529,871). ANALYSIS R1. CLAIMS 1-3, 7, AND 9-12 Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding the Wagner reference discloses "providing the read non-standard input data to an application at the client, . . . " within the meaning of claim 1? Appellants contend the Examiner did not identify a separate element of Wagner corresponding to the claimed "an application at the client." (App. Br. 11-12). Appellants' contention is persuasive. The Examiner relies on Wagner's Personal Computer (PC) 30 as corresponding to the claimed Appeal 2011-004421 Application 10/609,981 4 "client." (Ans. 3; Wagner, col. 5, ll. 62-65; Fig. 1). The Examiner finds Wagner's “applications supporting system 40” corresponds to the claimed "application at the client." (Ans. 12; Wagner, col. 10, ll. 29-30; Fig. 1). However, Wagner fails to disclose the “applications supporting system 40” ("application") resides on the PC 30 ("at the client"). (See Fig. 1; col. 10, ll. 29-30). Specifically, Wagner’s Figure 1 shows “applications supporting system 40” on a different computer than the PC 30. Also, Wagner (col. 10, ll. 29-30) discloses the "Server 12, CGI 28, and the applications supporting system 40 may all reside on a single host computer or they may reside on separate computers coupled together by a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN)." Therefore, Wagner fails to expressly or inherently disclose the applications supporting system 40 ("application") resides on the PC 30 ("at the client"). (See Fig. 1; col. 10, ll. 29-30). For these reasons, on this record, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 3, 7, and 9-12, which depend therefrom. R1. CLAIMS 33-35 AND 39-42 Appellants contend: The office action makes various assertions and citations to Wagner in support of the anticipation rejection of claim 1. The office action also appears to apply these same assertions and citations as being equally applicable to claim 33. However, the Appellant[s] assert[] that the claim limitations of claim 33 vary significantly from those of claim 1. The office action's failure to provide any reasoned statement applying the reference against the limitations of claim 33 makes these assertions improper. Should the Board find that claim 33 has been properly "rejected", then the Appellant[s] assert[] that the rejection fails to establish prima facie anticipation. Appeal 2011-004421 Application 10/609,981 5 (App. Br. 13-14). Appellants' contentions are persuasive. In particular, we observe claim 33 recites additional limitations not recited in claim 1. The Examiner fails to map claim 33's additional limitations to Wagner, instead relying on the rejection of claim 1 to reject claim 33 for the same reasons as claim 1. (Ans. 3-4). Therefore, the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 33, and of claims 34, 35, and 39-42, which depend therefrom. R2 AND R3 Regarding the rejection R2 of dependent claims 6, 8, 36, and 37, and the rejection R3 of dependent claim 38, the Examiner has not established the additional cited references cure the deficiencies of Wagner regarding the rejection of independent claims 1 and 33, as discussed above. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection R2 of claims 6, 8, 36, and 37, and rejection R3 of claim 38. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection R1 of claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 33-35, and 39-42 under § 102. We reverse the Examiner's rejection R2 of claims 6, 8, 36, and 37 under § 103. We reverse the Examiner's rejection R3 of claim 38 under § 103. REVERSED llw