Ex Parte Owhadi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2014

10165863 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ERIC OWHADI
____________________

Appeal 2012-0039021
Application 10/165,8632
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–22, 24–32, and 35. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
July 18, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 9, 2012), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 3, 2011).
2 The real party in interest, identified by Appellant, is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-003902
Application 10/165,863

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “a method of providing
access to computer diagnostic and configuration information to an interested
party” (Spec. 1, ll. 6–7).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method of providing computer diagnostic
information pertaining to a computer for analysis by a
technician at a remote location, the method comprising:
obtaining the computer diagnostic information pertaining
to a computer, the computer diagnostic information being
obtained by the computer;
sending the computer diagnostic information from the
computer to a holding location, inaccessible by the technician,
the holding location being associated with a support-visible site,
the holding location being a user-visible site remote from the
computer;
receiving at the computer, a location identifier from the
holding location; and
transmitting the received location identifier from the
computer to the technician to enable the technician to access at
least a portion of the computer diagnostic information from the
holding location, wherein the support-visible site is
automatically generated upon receipt of the location identifier
by the technician.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 6, 9–22, 26, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wyatt (US 2002/0013833 A1, pub. Jan. 31, 2002) and
Davis (US 7,139,795 B2, iss. Nov. 21, 2006).
Claims 5, 7, 8, 24, 25, and 27–32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wyatt, Davis, and Shachar (US 5,764,910, iss.
June 9, 1998).
Appeal 2012-003902
Application 10/165,863

3
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 26, and dependent claims 2–4, 6, 9–22, 26, and 35
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Wyatt nor Davis,
alone or in combination, discloses or suggests “wherein the support-visible
site is automatically generated upon receipt of the location identifier by the
technician,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 14–18; see also Reply Br. 6–8).
Independent claim 26 includes a substantially similar recitation.
The Examiner acknowledges that Wyatt does not explicitly disclose
the argued feature, and directs our attention to column 2, line 58 through
column 3, line 30, column 3, lines 38–67, and Figure 2 of Davis (Ans. 5–6
and 21–23). However, we agree with Appellant that there is nothing in the
cited portion of Davis that discloses or suggests a support-visible site that is
automatically generated upon receipt of the location identifier by the
technician, as called for in claim 1 (App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 6–8).
Davis discloses a system for sharing a browser session between two
clients both viewing the same content on the same Web content server
(Davis, col. 2, ll. 53–54; see also Abs.). Davis describes that its system
includes a browser client communicating over a network with a Web content
server via a server-side proxy, which is coupled to a server-side shadow
browser (id. at col. 2, ll. 1–33). Davis describes that the proxy is completely
transparent until a trigger event causes the proxy to intercept the Web page
in the form of a data stream, map the client browser address to a virtual
proxy address, and add the shadow browser client address to a proxy address
table for that session’s address (id., at col. 2, ll. 44–49; see also col. 3, ll. 19–
31). Davis describes that “the shadow client browser and client both display
Appeal 2012-003902
Application 10/165,863

4
the same [W]eb page (id. at col. 2, ll. 53–54). Davis also describes “[e]ach
member of the session may have the ability to navigate for the group among
any desired [W]eb pages or by defining a view only status within the address
mapping thereby enabling some active and other passive browser
participants” (id. at col. 3, ll. 45–48).
The Examiner takes the position that rendering the Web page to the
shadow browser upon a trigger event discloses that “the support-visible site
is automatically generated upon receipt of the location identifier by the
technician,” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 17). However, claim 1 calls for
automatically generating the support-visible site (see e.g., Spec. 8, ll. 8–17),
not simply rendering the same client browser session to a shadow client.
The Examiner reasons that claim 1 “merely requires a site that is visible to a
user and a support technician and the claim does not require two different
sites;” as such, the Examiner concludes that displaying the same site satisfies
the argued limitation (id. at 17).
We fail to see how, and the Examiner does not explain how, adding
the shadow browser client address to a proxy address table for that session’s
address and displaying the same Web page, i.e., session, in both browsers
constitutes automatically generating a support-visible site, as called for in
claims 1 and 26. We agree with Appellant that intercepting a Web page in
route to a client browser is not the same as generating a support-visible site
(Reply Br. 7; citing Davis at col. 3, ll. 23–25).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 1 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same
reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4, 6, 9–
22, 26, and 35, each of which ultimately depends from independent claim 1.
Appeal 2012-003902
Application 10/165,863

5
Independent claims 24, 27, and 31, and dependent claims 5, 7, 8, 25, and
28–30, and 32
Each of dependent claims 5, 7, and 8 depends from claim 1. And
independent claims 24, 27, and 31 include language substantially similar to
the language of claim 1. The Examiner does not establish on this record that
Shachar cures the deficiencies of Wyatt and Davis, as set forth above with
respect to claim 1.
Therefore we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of dependent claims 5, 7, and 8 for the same reasons set forth above
with respect to claim 1. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 24, 27, and 31, and dependent
claims 25, and 28–30, and 32, which ultimately depend from claims 24, 27,
and 31, respectively.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–22, 24–32, and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

Ssc