Ex Parte Hristov

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2018

13722095 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/722,095
152606 7590
VMWare-OPW
P.O. Box 4277
Seattle, WA 98194
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/20/2012 Rostislav Hristov
09/26/2018
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BOll 2688
EXAMINER
MACASIANO, JOANNE GONZALES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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 ROSTISLAV HRISTOV 1
Appeal2018-003544
Application 13/722,095
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final
rejection of claims 1-15, which constitute all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies VMware, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 1.)
Appeal2018-003544
Application 13/722,095
INVENTION
"The current application is directed to ... methods and systems for
introducing crosscutting functionality into computer code exported from a
server computer to client computers." (Spec. 1 :6-9.) "[C]rosscutting
functionality is encoded in advice included with the programs and
distributed to the client computers[.]" (Id. at 2:20-23.) "[W]eaving of the
advice into the programs [is performed] by the server computer prior to
distribution of the program to the client." (Id. at 2:24--27.) In an
embodiment, "the server ... replaces the byte code originally stored in the
file with the woven byte code." (Id. at 17: 12-14.)
Claims 1 and 6 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A server system comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more memones;
one or more mass-storage devices;
communications subsystems that receive requests for files
from remote client computers and transmit requested files to
client computers;
a weaver that weaves a script program and one or more
script aspects into a woven script program;
a server application that, upon receiving a first request for
a file containing a script program with associated script advice,
uses the weaver to weave the script program and
script advice together to produce a corresponding woven
script program,
replaces the script program with associated script
advice in the file with the corresponding woven script
program,
2
Appeal2018-003544
Application 13/722,095
stores the file containing the corresponding woven
script program in one or more of the one or more memories
and one or more mass-storage devices, and
transmits the file containing the corresponding
woven script program through the communications
subsystems.
6. A client system comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more memones;
communications subsystems that receive files
requested from remote server computers and transmit
requests for files to server computers; and
a file-rendering application that requests a file
containing a script program with associated script advice
and that
when the script program with associated advice has
been remotely woven on a server computer, interprets the
script program with associated script without weaving the
associated script advice into the script program.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Fowlow (US 6,260,078 Bl; July 10, 2001) and
Washizaki (Hironori Washizaki et al., AOJS: Aspect-Oriented JavaScript
Programming Framework for Web Development, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8TH
WORKSHOP ON ASPECTS, COMPONENTS, AND PATTERNS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
SOFTWARE (2009)).
Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Fowlow, Washizaki, and Ishida (US 2006/0101092 Al;
May 11, 2006).
3
Appeal2018-003544
Application 13/722,095
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Fowlow, Washizaki, and Cheng (US 2008/0168422 Al;
July 10, 2008).
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Fowlow and Washizaki
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 7) that the
combination ofFowlow and Washizaki would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "replaces the script
program with associated script advice in the file with the corresponding
woven script program."
The Examiner found that the weaving process of Washizaki, in which
the original code is replaced by the code for replacement, corresponds to the
limitation "replaces the script program with associated script advice in the
file with the corresponding woven script program." (Non-Final Act. 4--5;
see also Ans. 3--4.) We do not agree with the Examiner's findings.
Washizaki relates to Aspect-Oriented JavaScript (AOJS), in which
such JavaScript "realizes the complete separation of aspects and other core
modules in JavaScript." (Abstract.) In reference to the weaving process, in
which "AOJS' s weaver uses a code template ... for code replacement,"
Washizaki explains the following:
By using the code template, the weaving process consists of the
following two steps: Firstly, the weaver recognizes all of
program locations where the described pointcuts specify by
parsing the target JavaScript program files and aspect files.
Secondly, for each location (joinpoint), the weaver generates the
4
Appeal2018-003544
Application 13/722,095
code for replacement based on the template, and replaces the
original code to the code for replacement.
(§ 3.4.)
Although the Examiner cited to the AOJS weaver, in which "original
code" is replaced with "code for replacement," the Examiner has provided
insufficient evidence to support a finding that Washizaki teaches the
limitation "replaces the script program with associated script advice in the
file with the corresponding woven script program." In particular, the
Examiner has not demonstrated that the original JavaScript program of
Washizaki is replaced by a JavaScript program containing weaved code
fragments.
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments:
The weaver already produced the corresponding woven script
program in the preceding claim element ["uses the weaver to
weave the script program and script advice together to produce a
corresponding woven script program"]. The fact that a weaver
[in Washizaki] recognizes program locations corresponding to
pointcuts is entirely irrelevant in the current claim element,
which discusses server application actions following weaving,
by the weaver, of the advice and script program together.
(App. Br. 7.) Accordingly, on this record, the Examiner has not
demonstrated that Washizaki teaches the limitation "replaces the script
program with associated script advice in the file with the corresponding
woven script program," as recited in claim 1. Moreover, the Examiner's
application of Fowlow does not cure the deficiencies of Washizaki.
5
Appeal2018-003544
Application 13/722,095
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).2 Claims 2, 4, and 5 depend from claim 1. We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Independent claim 9 recites limitations commensurate in scope with
those of claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, or of dependent
claim 10, 12, 13, and 15, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
Claims 6 and 8
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 13; see also
Reply Br. 8) that the combination ofFowlow and Washizaki would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 6, which includes the limitation "a file-
rendering application that requests a file containing a script program with
associated script advice."
The Examiner found the web browser of Washizaki for processing
scripts on a client and the weaver of Washizaki, which weaves JavaScript
code fragments into the original JavaScript code, collectively, correspond to
the limitation "a file-rendering application that requests a file containing a
script program with associated script advice." (Ans. 7-8.) We agree with
the Examiner's findings.
Washizaki explains that "[t]o enhance the usability of the service
applications or realize the rich client applications mainly on the web, the
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
claim 1 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ), as being directed to both a
system and a method. In particular, system claim 1 also recites method
limitations of "uses," "replaces," "stores," and "transmits."
6
Appeal2018-003544
Application 13/722,095
client-side scripts have been widely accepted because the scripts are
processed on each client (usually web browser) independently from the
corresponding web servers." (§ 1, para. 1.) Moreover, Washizaki explains
that "[t]he client requests web pages with JavaScript" and "[t]he weaver
weaves JavaScript code fragments (advices) into the appropriate locations
(joinpoints) in original JavaScript programs, and returns the results to the
reverse proxy." (§ 3.1, paras. 1, 3.) Because the client ofWashizaki
requests web pages via a web browser, such that JavaScript communicates
with web clients via a web browser, and the weaver weaves JavaScript code
fragments into the appropriate locations in the original JavaScript programs,
Washizaki teaches the limitation "a file-rendering application that requests a
file containing a script program with associated script advice."
Appellant asserts:
Thus, in Washizaki's system, the client system either requests a
file containing a script program with associated script advice,
from an existing web server, or requests a file containing an
already woven script program from the reverse proxy. In other
words, under Washizaki' s system, the client system does not
decide, after requesting a file, whether or not the script program
with associated advice has already been remotely woven. In
W ashizaki' s scheme, when a client requests a file containing a
script program with associated script advice, the client would
have requested the file containing a script program with
associated script advice from the existing web server and would
then carry out client-side weaving.
(App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 8.) Appellant's assertion, however, merely
summarizes Washizaki. Appellant neither distinguishes the limitations of
claim 6 over Washizaki, nor provides any evidence as to why the
Examiner's findings with respect to Washizaki are improper.
7
Appeal2018-003544
Application 13/722,095
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Fowlow
and Washizaki would have rendered obvious independent claim 6, which
includes the limitation "a file rendering application that requests a file
containing a script program with associated script advice."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 8 depends from claim 6, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 6.
§ 103 Rejection-Fowlow, Washizaki, and Ishida
Claims 3 and 11 depend from independent claims 1 and 9. Ishida was
cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 3 and
11. (Non-Final Act. 16-18.) However, the Examiner's application of Ishida
does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Fowlow and Washizaki.
§ 103 Rejection-Fowlow, Washizaki, and Cheng
Claim 7
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 7 separately (App. Br. 15), the arguments do not identify or explain
why the Examiner erred. Instead, Appellant merely provides a conclusory
statement that "[ t ]he cited paragraph of Cheng has nothing at all to do with
the point in time at which advice is woven into the script program, but is
instead concerned with Cheng's method for incorporating both local advice
as well as remote advice into programs." (Id.) We are not persuaded by
8
Appeal2018-003544
Application 13/722,095
these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 6, from
which claim 7 depends. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from independent claim 9. Cheng was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 14. (Non-Final Act.
19-20.) However, the Examiner's application of Cheng does not cure the
above noted deficiencies ofFowlow and Washizaki.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 9-15 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6-8 is affirmed.
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-IN-PART
9