Ex Parte Ireland

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

12641775 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/641,775 12/18/2009
82515 7590 03/27/2018
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Evan Peter IRELAND
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.
1933.0980000 1258
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TRUONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 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 EV AN PETER IRELAND
Appeal2017-010470
Application 12/641,775
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14--18, and 20-25,
which constitutes all claims currently pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-010470
Application 12/641,775
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's 1 invention is directed to "generating dynamic attribute
elements and dynamic attributes for" mobile business objects (MBOs ).
Spec. i-f 5; see id. i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed
limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method for adding dynamic
attributes to a mobile business object (MBO), comprising:
embedding, using a server, one or more dynamic attribute
elements in metadata of said MBO, wherein said dynamic
attribute elements are configured to position one or more
dynamic attributes within said metadata of said MBO, and
wherein said MBO is a representation of a subset of data
contained in a data source;
receiving a localization parameter from a mobile device
running a mobile application, wherein the localization
parameter identifies a language personalization for the mobile
application running on the mobile device;
localizing the metadata of the MBO in real-time based on
the localization parameter received from the mobile device; and
including, using said server, at least one dynamic attribute
within said dynamic attribute elements between synchronization
sessions of a server and a mobile application,
wherein said MBO is configured to enable a mobile
application to discover a dynamic attribute associated with said
MBO by retrieving attributes associated with said MBO and
determining that at least one of said retrieved attributes
comprises said dynamic attribute, and
wherein said MBO is configured to enable said mobile
application to modify a value of said discovered dynamic
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sybase, Inc. See App.
Br. 3.
2
Appeal2017-010470
Application 12/641,775
attribute between synchronization sessions of said server and
said mobile application.
REJECTIONS 2
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14--18, and 20-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chou et al.
(US 2006/0160533 Al; published July 20, 2006) ("Chou"), Chow-Toun (US
2004/0171375 Al; published Sept. 2, 2004), and Burvall et al. (US
2010/0185434 Al; published July 22, 2010) ("Burvall"). Final Act. 4--5.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chou, Chow-Toun, Burvall, and Zhu
(US 2010/0325556 Al; published Dec. 23, 2010). Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chou,
Chow-Toun, and Burvall teaches or suggests "receiving a localization
parameter from a mobile device running a mobile application, wherein the
localization parameter identifies a language personalization for the mobile
application running on the mobile device; localizing the metadata of the
MBO in real-time based on the localization parameter received from the
mobile device," as recited in independent claim 1?
The Examiner finds Chou's dynamic attributes and parameters in a
table teach the claimed MBO (mobile business object) metadata. Final Act.
5 (citing Chou Figs. 4a--4c, i-fi-151, 59). The Examiner further finds Burvall's
2 In addition to the rejections identified above, the Examiner rejected claims
1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 14--18, and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Final Act. 2. That rejection has been withdrawn. Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2017-010470
Application 12/641,775
"selecting the language based on the geographic location, country code or
GPS coordinator of the wireless terminal" teaches the claimed localization
parameter that identifies language personalization and "'adapting MBO
metadata to the linguistic requirements and language personalization
parameter' as disclosed by the Specification." Ans. 5---6 (citing Burvall
i-fi-142--44, 47, 54; citing Spec. i-fi-159, 62); see Final Act. 6-7 (citing Burvall
,-r,-r 42--44, 47, 54).
Appellant contends that Burvall teaches actual translation and
generates a translated signal in a second human language, but does not teach
localization of metadata of the MBO as required by the claim. App. Br. 13.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the claim instead specifies a two-part test
for localization including a localization parameter identifying a language for
the mobile device and existing metadata in the MBO corresponding to the
identified language, but the claim does not perform translation. App. Br. 14;
see Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error because Appellant's
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language,
which does not require existing metadata in the MBO corresponding to the
identified language for localization. Appellant's Specification broadly
describes that "[l]ocalization is the process of adapting MBO metadata to the
linguistic requirements of a user of mobile application 202." Spec. i156.
Appellant's Specification further discusses an example where "MBO
metadata at server 208 contains an embedded string
'en::City;;de::Stadt;;fr::Ville' and ifthe mobile application 202's selected
language personalization parameter is 'fr"' (Spec. i158), the "server 208 then
localizes the metadata with language personalization parameter (e.g. [,]'fr')
4
Appeal2017-010470
Application 12/641,775
provided by mobile application 202" (Spec. i-f 59), resulting in "the metadata
received by the mobile application 202 will contain the string 'Ville' as
'Ville' is associated with the selected language 'fr"' (Spec. i-f 58). Although
this example shows localization performed via existing metadata in the
MBO for each of the three languages, we decline to import limitations from
the Specification into the claims. We find the claimed "receiving a
localization parameter from a mobile device running a mobile application,
wherein the localization parameter identifies a language personalization"
and "localizing the metadata of the MBO in real-time based on the
localization parameter" (emphasis added), in light of Appellant's
Specification (particularly paragraph 56), broadly encompasses a
localization parameter identifying a language (e.g., a language parameter
selecting the French language), and subsequently translating metadata in
real-time based on the language personalization (e.g., mobile application
metadata contains a "Ville" string because "Ville" is associated with the
selected French language).
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 5---6), Burvall
describes "real-time language translation between the first and second
communication terminals 1 OOa and 1 OOb executing language translation
applications 225a and 225b." Burvall i-f 54 (emphasis added). Burvall
provides this real-time language translation starting with "the language
translation application 225a executing on a wireless terminal lOOa
provid[ing] a language inquiry ... to a user of the wireless terminal lOOa,"
where the language inquiry "may request the user's desired or preferred
language for transmitting and/or receiving speech and/or text signals
to/from the language translation server 140." Burvall i-f 54 (emphasis
5
Appeal2017-010470
Application 12/641,775
added). In other words, Burvall teaches identifying a selected language, and
subsequently providing real-time translation for speech and text signals
based on the selected language.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument that the
claimed localization parameter identifying a language personalization and
localizing metadata of the MBO in real-time based on the localization
parameter, encompassing a parameter identifying a language and
subsequently translating metadata based on the parameter, is not taught or
suggested by the combination of Chou's metadata and Burvall' s identifying
a selected language and subsequently providing real-time translation for
speech and text signals based on the selected language.
Appellant further contends the combination of Burvall with Chou and
Chow-Toun is not obvious and relies on impermissible hindsight. App. Br.
15; see Reply Br. 5. However, Appellant does not identify, nor do we
discern, any knowledge that the Examiner relied upon that was gleaned only
from Appellant's disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of
ordinary skill at the time of the invention. The Examiner finds it would have
been obvious to modify Chou with Burvall "so that the system would be able
to automatically translate the language of the mobile device based on the
detected location," as motivated "to provide the capability for worldwide
communication of the mobile device." Final Act. 7 (citing Burvall i-f 3).
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the
Examiner's findings.
For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of independent claims 9 and 10, as well as
6
Appeal2017-010470
Application 12/641,775
dependent claims 3, 5-8, 12, 14--18, and 20-25, not argued separately. See
App. Br. 16-17.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14--18, and
20-25 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
7