Ex Parte Molnar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

09934738 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte INGO MOLNAR

________________

Appeal 2013-003786
Application 09/934,738
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-003786
Application 09/934,738

2
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-14 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Muthuswamy et al. (US
6,606,525 B1, August 12, 2003) (“Muthuswamy”) and Moskowitz et al. (US
6,662,215 B1, December 9, 2003) (“Moskowitz”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to dynamic and static protocol
objects mixed together at a server and included in a dynamic reply to a
communication request made by a client application. When a request is
made by a client to receive a reply, such as a Web page using the HTTP
application protocol, the server creates at least one dynamic protocol object
to form at least a portion of the reply. The dynamic protocol object or
objects are sent to the client application. Static protocol objects are then
retrieved and sent to the client application to complete the reply to the
application protocol request at the client application. Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Because Appellant makes no separate arguments for the claims, we
select claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 6, 11. Claim 1 recites:
1. In a communication server, a method of
responding to a client application of a computer, the method
comprising:

Appeal 2013-003786
Application 09/934,738

3
receiving, from the client application, an application
protocol request corresponding to a response that can be
displayed as a combination of a dynamic portion and a static
portion, wherein the dynamic portion comprises a portion of the
response that changes, and wherein the static portion comprises
a portion of the response that includes static protocol objects
that are stored at a server prior to receiving the application
protocol request;

creating, by the server, the dynamic portion of the
response;

sending the dynamic portion of the response to the client
application;

retrieving, at the server, the static portion of the response
from a cache disposed in an operating system kernel of the
server, wherein the server is separate from the computer, and
wherein the static portion of the response is identified as static
by the server; and

sending the static portion of the response that is static
from the server to the client application of the computer so that
the server sends the response to the request using previously-
cached static protocol objects.

App. Br. 8.

ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by finding that the
combination of Muthuswamy and Moskowitz teaches or suggests the
limitation of claim 1 reciting “sending the part of the response that is static
from the server to the client application of the computer.” App. Br. 5. We
therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Appeal 2013-003786
Application 09/934,738

4
Analysis
Appellant contends that there is no discussion in Muthuswamy of
static content being handled by the server at all, much less static content
being retrieved by the server and being sent to the computer as a portion of a
response (along with dynamic content being created by the server as another
portion of the response). App. Br. 5. According to Appellant, Muthuswamy
teaches or suggests that subprocesses occur on the user’s computer and the
server performs no functions other than unintelligently transmitting data -
the server does not discriminate between static and dynamic data. Id.
Appellant argues that Muthuswamy does not teach or suggest separately
managing the sending of dynamic and static content at the server to form
complete responses or retrieving at the server of the static portion of the
response from the cache in the server operating system. Id.
Appellant argues further that the teachings of Moskowitz do not cure
the alleged deficiencies in the teachings of Muthuswamy. App. Br. 5.
According to Appellant, Moskowitz teaches multiple servers; the server that
responds to the client application (i.e., the “first server arrangement”)
produces a complete Web page file and forwards that complete file to the
User’s computer as a unitary response, without distinguishing between
dynamic and static content. App. Br. 6. Appellant argues that Moskowitz
teaches away from Appellant’s claim recitations, which are drawn to
creating and sending the dynamic portion as well as sending the static
portion. Id. Therefore, Appellant contends, neither Muthuswamy nor
Moskowitz teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “sending
the part of the response that is static from the server to the client application
of the computer.” Id.
Appeal 2013-003786
Application 09/934,738

5

The Examiner responds that, contra Appellant’s argument, claim 1
does not recite “managing the sending of dynamic and static content at the
server to form complete responses or retrieving at the server of the static
portion of the response from the cache in the server operating system.” Ans.
2. The Examiner finds that Muthuswamy teaches or suggests a client
making a web page request (i.e., an application protocol request retrieved at
the server). Id. (citing Muthuswamy, col. 3, l. 39-41; col. 4, ll. 43-44). The
Examiner finds that the requested web page is sent (from the server to the
client) as a combination of dynamic and static content. Ans. 2 (citing
Muthuswamy, col. 3, ll. 5-7; col. 4, ll. 39-46).
The Examiner finds further that Moskowitz teaches or suggests a web
page with both static and dynamic content delivered to the user device from
the server (sending of dynamic and static content from the server to the
client). Ans. 2-3 (citing Moskowitz, col. 7, l. 11-16). Consequently, the
Examiner finds, the combination of Muthuswamy and Moskowitz teaches or
suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “sending the [part] of the response
that is static from the server to the client application of the computer.”
We agree with the Examiner. Muthuswamy explicitly teaches that
“static and dynamic data representing the web page is downloaded to the
user computer 18, shown at block 50, and then a decision is made as to
whether the data is dynamic data, shown at decision 52.” Muthuswamy, col
3, ll. 5-9; Ans. 2. Moreover, Moskowitz teaches that “[t]he server
arrangement 130 receives the first request 10 for the web page. Generally,
the web page consists of: (i) a particular static content requested by the user
that is stored and/or generated by the server arrangement 130; and (ii) the
Appeal 2013-003786
Application 09/934,738

6
dynamic optimized content that may be generated by RTCO server 140.”
Moskowitz, col. 6, ll. 40-46 (emphasis added). We therefore find that the
combination of Muthuswamy and Moskowitz teaches the disputed limitation
of claim 1 and that the Examiner did not err in so finding.

Issue 2
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by finding that the
combination of Muthuswamy and Moskowitz teaches or suggests the
limitation of claim 1 reciting “sending the part of the response that is static
from the server to the client application of the computer.” App. Br. 5. We
therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellant admits that Moskowitz contains teaching corresponding to
the recitations of Appellant’s claim 1 related to retrieving static portions of a
response from a cache. App. Br. 6. Appellant contends, however, that
Moskowitz makes only a simple reference to static content being “stored
and/or generated by the server arrangement” and that there is no discussion
or teaching in Moskowitz regarding where or how the content is stored, or
even whether it is stored at the responding server. App. Br. 6 (citing
Moskowitz, col. 6, l. 41-44). Appellant argues that the content could, for
example, be stored externally, on another server or elsewhere. Id. Appellant
argues that claim 1 explicitly requires that the static portion is retrieved
from, “a cache disposed in an operating system kernel of the server.” Id.
Appellant explains that a cache is a specific type of storage, and that the
claim 1 requires that the cache be explicitly maintained in the operating
Appeal 2013-003786
Application 09/934,738

7
system kernel. Id. Moreover, Appellant argues that the structure of claim 1
makes it clear that the server’s operating system kernel in which the cache is
disposed is the same server that responds to the client’s request. Id.
The Examiner responds that a cache is storage and that a kernel is an
inherent component of all operating systems. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds
that an operating system (OS) is an inherent part of computing devices such
as servers. Id. Hence, finds the Examiner, having a cache disposed in an
operating system kernel of the server is equivalent to having storage within
the server. Id. The Examiner finds, therefore that Moskowitz teaches the
disputed limitation by teaching or suggesting static content retrieval from the
server-side storage. Id. (citing Moskowitz, col. 6, ll. 41-44).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s reasoning. We agree with the
Examiner that an operating system kernel is an inherent component of
computing systems, including servers. Ans. 2. Furthermore, it is well-
known in the art that a cache may be disposed in an OS kernel. See, e.g.,
“Page Cache,” available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_cache (“A
page cache is typically implemented in kernels with the paging memory
management [a portion of the OS], and is completely transparent to
applications.”) (last visited March 25, 2013). We therefore agree with the
Examiner that having a cache disposed in an operating system kernel of the
server is equivalent to having storage within the server, and conclude that
the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Muthuswamy
and Moskowitz teaches the limitation of claim 1 reciting “sending the [part]
of the response that is static from the server to the client application of the
computer.”
Appeal 2013-003786
Application 09/934,738

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

msc