Ex Parte Kristiansson et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 9, 2019

13498480 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/498,480 03/27/2012 Johan Kristiansson
24112 7590 04/09/2019
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-8006 I P28698 US 1 5678
EXAMINER
NAOREEN, NAZIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2019 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 JOHAN KRISTIANSSON and KARL-JOAN LUNDKVIST 1
Appeal2018-006623
Application 13/498,480
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 44 through 73 which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
L M Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006623
Application 13/498,480
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an application execution server and a
method for managing a background process associated with a rich internet
application, which is accessible via a web browser of an internet enabled
user device. Abstract.
Claim 44 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
44. An application execution server comprising:
a processor and a memory, the memory containing
instructions executable by the processor whereby the
application execution server is configured to:
responsive to receiving a request from a Rich Internet
Application (RIA) executing on a user device, create a
background process on the application execution server;
after execution of the RIA on the remote user device has
terminated and in response to the background process
recognizing an event associated with the RIA, trigger, by the
background process, re-execution of the RIA on the remote user
device;
wherein the RIA is accessible via a web browser of the
user device.
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 44 through 73 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amer (US 8,341,595) and Karmaker
(US 8,045,236). Final Act. 2-16.
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
December 11, 2017, the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 12, 2018, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed August 21, 2017, and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 11, 2018.
2
Appeal 2018-006623
Application 13/498,480
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error as the
combination of the references do not teach after the execution of the Rich
Internet Application (RIA) has terminated and in response to the background
process recognizing an event associated with the RIA, trigger, by the
background process, re-execution of the RIA as recited in independent claim
44 and similarly recited in independent claims 51, 60 and 67. App Br. 5-6,
Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, Appellants argue that Amer, which the
Examiner relies upon to teach this feature, does not teach that the RIA is
terminated and re-executed as claimed. Id.
The Examiner in response to Appellants' arguments states:
Amer further teaches that a triggering event takes place to
activate the RIA functionality via a widget or specified amount
of time lapse, and the player requests server-side functionality
(Col. 9, Lines 63 - Col. 10, Lines 36). Hence for re-execution,
a RIA which is a dynamic content, is triggered when it is
inactive causing the inactive application to become active and
thus re-executing the RIA. Amer however does not disclose a
background process of the RIA.
Answer 3.
We have reviewed the cited teachings of Amer and disagree with the
Examiner's findings. Each of the independent claims 44, 52, 60, and 67
recites a limitation directed to re-executing the RIA in response to
terminating the RIA and a triggering event (or notification). Amer in the
cited section, column 9, line 63, through column 10 line 3 6 discusses a
3
Appeal 2018-006623
Application 13/498,480
process, shown in Figure 4, where an RIA is executed (see step 407, Fig. 4).
After the execution of the RIA, a triggering event in Amer teaches a
triggering event may take place (step 408, Fig. 4), discussed in column 10 as
the user twiddling a widget to activate the RIA functionality. However,
neither the cited passage nor Figure 4 identify that after step 407 of
executing the RIA, the RIA is terminated and then re-executed when the
triggering event occurs. Thus, we do not find that Amer teaches in response
to terminating the RIA and a triggering event the RIA is re-executed as
claimed. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has not shown the combination
of the references teach all of the limitations of the independent claims 44,
52, 60, and 67 and we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 44
through 73.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 44 through
73 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
4