11232586 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013)

Ex Parte Balasuriya

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 2013

11232586 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SENAKA BALASURIYA ____________________ Appeal 2011-013584 Application 11/232,586 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013584 Application 11/232,586 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 7-14, 22-25, 35, and 36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is related to communication devices and methods that employ proxy servers. (Spec. 1). Independent claim 7, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 7. A system for multi-modal communication comprising: a terminal that includes at least: at least one graphical browser with a graphical browser per session multi-modal proxy evaluator that dynamically evaluates, on a per session basis, a stored graphical browser proxy identifier with a received per-session multi-modal proxy identifier from a network element as selected by the network element; and at least one graphical browser multi-modal synchronization interface operably coupled to the at least one graphical browser. REFERENCE Boloker US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2002/0194388 A1 Dec. 19, 2002 Appeal 2011-013584 Application 11/232,586 3 REJECTION Claims 7-14, 22-25, 35, and 361 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Boloker. ANALYSIS Appellant contends that: it is alleged in the Final Action that the claimed graphical browser is the multi-modal shell 41 and that the multi-modal shell 41 is also the per session multi-modal proxy evaluator and apparently is also a multi-modal proxy since the Final Action states “a multimodal shell acts as a browser coordinator that uses synchronization tags or name conventions (proxy identifiers) to provide synchronization between the views” (Final Action, page 4 and page 2). The Examiner also states that Boloker teaches that the multi-modal shell “functions as a virtual proxy”. However, such an interpretation would then require that the proxy itself evaluate its own multi-modal proxy identifiers. However, this is not what is claimed. What is claimed as noted above is that a graphical browser employs a graphical browser per session multi-modal proxy evaluator that dynamically evaluates stored graphical browser proxy identifier information with the received per session multi-modal proxy identifier that is not provided by itself but instead is from a network element as selected by a network element as claimed. (App. Br. 16) (emphasis omitted). Additionally, with respect to the Examiner’s reliance upon the MVC (Ans. 4; Final Rej. 4), Appellant contends that the MVC is a framework rather than a specific thing. (App. Br. 17). 1 We note that the Examiner did not include dependent claim 36 in the introductory paragraph of the rejection, but includes a discussion of claim 36 in the body of the rejection. (Final Rej. 9; Ans. 8). Therefore, we include claim 36 in the statement of the rejection. Appeal 2011-013584 Application 11/232,586 4 However, there is no citation to any data described in Boloker that corresponds to the received per-session multi-modal proxy identifier from a network element, nor of any such per-session multi-modal proxy identifier that is selected by a network element on a per-session basis nor that is compared to a stored graphical browser proxy identifier by the multi-modal shell. Although Boloker sets forth that the multimodal shell 41 acts as a type of browser coordinator, this is different from the claimed session proxy servers and graphical browser operation as claimed. (App. Br. 17) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner does not respond to Appellant’s “per session basis” limitation in the responsive arguments. (Ans. 9-11). The Examiner repeats the same position as advanced with respect to the rejection of claim 11, but not to independent claim 7. (Ans. 12). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not identified any data described in Boloker that corresponds to the received per-session multi- modal proxy identifier from a network element, nor of any such per-session multi-modal proxy identifier that is selected by a network element on a per- session basis nor that is compared to a stored graphical browser proxy identifier by the multi-modal shell. Therefore, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claim 7 and its dependent claims 8-14 and 36. Independent claim 22 contains similar limitations, as discussed above. Again, the Examiner has not shown these limitations to be described within the four corners of the Boloker reference. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 22 and its respective dependent claims 23-25 and 35. Appeal 2011-013584 Application 11/232,586 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7-14, 22-25, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7-14, 22-25, 35, and 36 is reversed. REVERSED msc