Ex Parte Vadella et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2010

10607119 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/607,119 06/26/2003 Kenneth Alexander Vadella G&C 30566.243-US-U1 5589
55895 7590 09/21/2010
GATES & COOPER LLP
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
ANYA, CHARLES E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte KENNETH ALEXANDER VADELLA,
J. DANIEL SMITH, and DENNIS M. MULONAS JR.
________________

Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to communications between disconnected
applications (Spec. 2, ¶ [0003]).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for enabling
communication between disconnected applications,
comprising:

a secondary application creating a bridge object, wherein
an interface for the bridge object enables communication
with the secondary application through the bridge object;

registering the interface for the bridge object in a global
interface table (GIT);

retrieving a cookie from the GIT in response to the
registration, wherein the cookie comprises information
for utilizing the interface for the bridge object; and

storing the cookie in a location that is accessible to a
disconnected application such that the cookie may be
retrieved to enable use of the interface, and wherein the
disconnected application is unaware of the secondary
application.
(Claims Appendix, App. Br. 11).
References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Srinivasan 2004/0205734 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

3
Microsoft Corp., Platform SDK: COM IGlobalInterfaceTable (2001)
(“IGlobalInterfaceTable”).
Rejection
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan.
ISSUES
Issue 1
Appellants argue that “IGlobalInterfaceTable is silent with respect to
disconnected applications and the disconnected application being unaware of
the secondary application” (App. Br. 6).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that IGlobalInterfaceTable and
Srinivasan would have taught or suggested storage of a cookie in a location
accessible to a disconnected application that is unaware of a secondary
application?
Issue 2
Appellants argue that “separate electronic searches of Srinivasan for
the terms ‘project’ and ‘host’ provides no results whatsoever” (App. Br. 7).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that IGlobalInterfaceTable and
Srinivasan would have taught or suggested a secondary application that is a
project hosting environment?
Issue 3
Appellants argue that “a pointer to a cookie is not a pointer to an
interface” (App. Br. 7-8).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that IGlobalInterfaceTable and
Srinivasan would have taught or suggested registering an interface for a
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

4
bridge object in a global interface table comprising placing a pointer to the
interface for the bridge object in the global interface table?
Issue 4
Appellants argue that “[i]f IGlobalInterfaceTable provides a pointer to
a cookie, then the same language cannot be used to indicate that the cookie
identifies the pointer and location of the interface” (App. Br. 8).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that IGlobalInterfaceTable and
Srinivasan would have taught or suggested a cookie that identifies a pointer
and a location of an interface?
Issue 5
Appellants argue that IGlobalInterfaceTable “fails to teach, describe,
or suggest the extracting of a cookie from a location that is accessible to a
disconnected application” (App. Br. 8).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that IGlobalInterfaceTable and
Srinivasan would have taught or suggested a disconnected application
extracting a cookie from a location, accessing the cookie to enable use of a
bridge object, and communicating with a secondary application using an
interface for the bridge object?
Issue 6
Appellants argue that “IGlobalInterfaceTable merely teaches a pointer
to a ‘cookie’ that identifies an interface and its location” (App. Br. 9).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that IGlobalInterfaceTable and
Srinivasan would have taught or suggested storing a cookie in an
environment variable?
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

5
Issue 7
Appellants argue that in the claimed invention, “while both
applications are in the same process, they are unaware of each other” (App.
Br. 10).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that IGlobalInterfaceTable and
Srinivasan would have taught or suggested a secondary application and a
disconnected application executing within a same process but in different
apartments?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. IGlobalInterfaceTable discloses “an efficient way for a process to
store an interface pointer in a memory location that can be
accessed from multiple apartments within the process, such as
processwide variables and agile (free-threaded marshaled) objects
containing interface pointers to other objects” (p. 1, ll. 8-10).
2. IGlobalInterfaceTable discloses that
[a]fter calling the CoCreateInstance function, register the
interface you want to make available processwide from
the apartment in which it resides with a call to the
RegisterInterfaceInGlobal method. This supplies a
pointer to a ‘cookie’ (through the pdwCookie parameter)
that identifies the interface and its location. An
apartment that wants a pointer to this interface then calls
the GetInterfaceFromGlobal method with this cookie,
and the implementation then supplies an interface pointer
to the calling apartment.
(p. 1, ll. 37-41).
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

6
3. Srinivasan discloses “[a] COM [component object model]
container application, such as Excel (™) is shown as the client to
receive services deployed through Jini (™) . . . . The COM client
is looking for a calculator through the Jini (™) brokering service”
(¶ [0007]).
4. Srinivasan discloses that “COM applications such as 110 cannot
directly call for services from these Java objects . . . . [The object
code] is wrapped as an Active X Java service” (¶ [0008]).
5. Srinivasan discloses “a first, non Java client, requesting specified
services from a Java broker” (claim 1), “wherein said non Java
client is a spreadsheet client” (claim 5).
6. The Specification discloses that ActiveX controls are examples of
disconnected applications (p. 7, ¶ [0022]; p. 10, ¶ [0029]; p. 16-18
¶¶ [0050-57]; p. 26, Abstract).
7. The Specification discloses that ProjectPoint is an example of “a
project hosting environment” (p. 4, ¶ [0010]).
8. The Specification discloses that “[a]n example of a particular
secondary application 202/project hosting environment that hosts
ActiveX controls is EROOM™ (herein eRoom) (an environment
available from eRoom Technology, Inc. of Cambridge
Massachusetts)” (p. 11, ¶ [0033]).
9. The Specification discloses that “an environment variable 408 is
an item of data that is updated by the operating system, web
server or other control program. Further, the environment
variable 408 resides in memory and can be read by applications”
(p. 16, ¶ [0048]).
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

7
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim interpretation
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations. . . . [L]imitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term
“must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from
common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the
field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d
1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results,”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007), especially if the
combination would not be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
ANALYSIS
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

8
Issue 1
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Srinivasan’s
teachings and suggestions relate to disconnected applications. Based on
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1-24 with respect to issue 1 on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Specification repeatedly discloses that ActiveX controls are
examples of disconnected applications (FF 6). Srinivasan discloses
wrapping object code as an Active X Java service (FF 4). Therefore,
Srinivasan’s teachings and suggestions relate to disconnected applications
(Active X Java services).
Appellants argue that “the claim limitations explicitly provide that the
disconnected application is unaware of the secondary application . . . . [and]
the COM client [of Srinivasan] is explicitly aware of a calculator” (App.
Br. 6). This argument is unpersuasive because the claim language does not
require that the secondary application be unaware of the disconnected
application. While Srinivasan discloses a COM client (secondary
application) looking for a calculator (disconnected application) (FF 3),
Appellants do not show that the calculator is aware of the COM client.
Appellants further argue that “IGlobalInterfaceTable completely fails
to teach, disclose, or suggest, explicitly or implicitly, any storage of a cookie
in a globally accessible location” (App Br. 6). However, IGlobalInterface-
Table teaches that calling the RegisterInterfaceInGlobal method supplies a
pointer to a cookie (FF 2). This cookie is accessible to other apartments,
which can call the GetInterfaceFromGlobal method with the cookie to obtain
a pointer to the registered interface (id.). Therefore, IGlobalInterfaceTable
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

9
and Srinivasan would have taught or suggested storage of a cookie
(supplying a pointer to a cookie) in a location accessible (where the cookie is
accessible from other apartments) to a disconnected application (Active X
Java service) that is unaware of a secondary application (COM client).
For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded of error with respect
to this issue in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1-24.
Issue 2
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Srinivasan teaches
or suggests a secondary application that is a project hosting environment.
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal of claims 2, 8, and 14 with respect to issue 2 on the basis of claim 2.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants submit that “Srinivasan’s Jini application is a stand alone
application rather than an application executing in a web browser or a
project hosting environment” (App. Br. 7). However, Appellants fail to
submit evidence defining what constitutes a project hosting environment.
The Specification does not clearly distinguish project hosting environment
applications from other applications. Instead, the Specification gives two
example project hosting environments, ProjectPoint (FF 7) and eRoom
(FF 8), without identifying the particular project hosting environment
features shared by these applications. Therefore, we rely on the plain
meaning of “project hosting environment” as software that provides access
(hosting environment for) to a work product (a project).
Srinivasan discloses a COM container application that looks for a
calculator through a brokering service (FF 3) and that uses an Active X Java
service (FF 4). Srinivsan discloses that this COM container object can be a
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

10
spreadsheet client (FF 5). A spreadsheet client is software that provides
access to a work product, where the work product is a spreadsheet.
Therefore, IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught or
suggested a secondary application (COM container application) that is a
project (spreadsheet) hosting environment (client).
For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded of error with respect
to this issue in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 8,
and 14.
Issue 3
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s reliance on IGlobalInterface-
Table in teaching or suggesting a pointer to an interface. Based on
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal of
claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, 23, and 24 with respect to issue 3 on the basis of
claim 4. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants submit that the claims “specify that the registering of the
interface places a pointer to the interface FOR THE BRIDGE OBJECT in
the global interface table” (App. Br. 7). Calling the RegisterInterfaceIn-
Global method of IGlobalInterfaceTable supplies a pointer to a cookie
(FF 2). Apartments can use this cookie with the GetInterfaceFromGlobal
method to obtain a pointer to the registered interface (id.). Through these
mechanisms, IGlobalInterfaceTable provides a way for a process to store an
interface pointer in a memory location that can be accessed from multiple
apartments (FF 1). Therefore, IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would
have taught or suggested registering an interface for a bridge object in a
global interface table (calling RegisterInterfaceInGlobal) comprising placing
a pointer to the interface for the bridge object (to store an interface pointer)
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

11
in the global interface table (in a memory location accessible from multiple
apartments using the GetInterfaceFromGlobal method).
For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded of error with respect
to this issue in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4, 5,
10, 11, 16, 17, 23, and 24.
Issue 4
Appellants submit that IGlobalInterfaceTable would not have taught
or suggested both a pointer to a cookie and a cookie that identified the
pointer and location of an interface. Based on Appellants’ arguments in the
Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal of claims 5, 11, and 17 with respect
to issue 4 on the basis of claim 5. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ reasoning. IGlobalInterface-
Table teaches that calling the RegisterInterfaceInGlobal method supplies a
pointer to a cookie that identifies an interface and its location (FF 2).
IGlobalInterfaceTable further teaches that calling the GetInterfaceFrom-
Global method with the cookie supplies an interface pointer (id.). Therefore,
IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught or suggested a
cookie (supplying a pointer to a cookie) that identifies a pointer (by means
of the GetInterfaceFromGlobal method) and a location of an interface
pointer.
For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded of error with respect
to this issue in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 11,
and 17.
Issue 5
Appellants argue that IGlobalInterfaceTable fails to teach or suggest
extracting of a cookie from a location that is accessible to a disconnected
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

12
application. Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will
decide the appeal of claims 6, 12, and 18 with respect to issue 5 on the basis
of claim 6. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
IGlobalInterfaceTable teaches supplying a pointer to a cookie and an
apartment using that cookie to obtain an interface pointer (FF 2). Srinivasan
teaches a COM application using an Active X Java service to indirectly call
for services from Java objects (FF 4). Therefore, IGlobalInterfaceTable and
Srinivasan would have taught or suggested a disconnected application
(Active X Java service) extracting a cookie from a location (as an apartment
using a cookie), accessing the cookie to enable use of a bridge object (to
obtain an interface pointer), and communicating (providing services to) with
a secondary application (a COM application) using an interface for the
bridge object (using the interface pointer).
For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded of error with respect
to this issue in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 6, 12,
and 18.
Issue 6
Appellants argue that IGlobalInterfaceTables’ teaching of a pointer to
a cookie “does not contemplate, explicitly or implicitly, an environment
variable nor the storage of the cookie in such an environment variable”
(App. Br. 9). Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will
decide the appeal of claims 19, 21, and 23 with respect to issue 6 on the
basis of claim 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Specification provides a broad definition of an environment
variable as an item that is updated by an operating system, web server, or
other control program; that resides in memory; and that can be read by
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

13
applications (FF 9). IGlobalInterfaceTable teaches supplying a pointer to a
cookie that identifies the interface and its location (FF 2). This cookie can
be used to obtain an interface pointer (id.). Thus, IGlobalInterfaceTable
teaches an item (cookie) that is updated by an operating system, web server,
or other control program (set to identify an interface and its location); that
resides in memory (a pointer to the cookie is supplied); and that can be read
by applications (and the cookie can be used to obtain an interface pointer).
Because the handling of a cookie in IGlobalInterfaceTable is consistent with
the Specification’s disclosure regarding environment variables, we find that
IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught or suggested
storing a cookie in an environment variable.
For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded of error with respect
to this issue in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 19,
21, and 23.
Issue 7
Appellants argue that IGlobalInterfaceTable fails to teach or suggest
applications in the same process that are unaware of each other (App.
Br. 10). Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will
decide the appeal of claims 20, 22, and 24 with respect to issue 7 on the
basis of claim 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they rely on
recitations that are not found in the claims. Appellants do not show that the
limitation “wherein the secondary application and disconnected application
are executing within a same process but in different apartments” (claim 20)
requires that the applications be unaware of each other. As discussed,
independent claim 1 includes the recitation “wherein the disconnected
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

14
application is unaware of the secondary application,” but this recitation does
not distinguish the prior art. Appellants do not direct us to any language that
requires that the secondary application be unaware of the disconnected
application.
Srinivasan teaches a COM application using an Active X Java service
(FF 4). IGlobalInterfaceTable teaches multiple apartments within a process
(FF 1). Therefore, IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught
or suggested a secondary application (COM application) and a disconnected
application (Active X Java service) executing with a same process but in
different apartments (in multiple apartments within a process).
For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded of error with respect
to this issue in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 20,
22, and 24.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we find no
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings:
1. that IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught or
suggested storage of a cookie in a location accessible to a disconnected
application that is unaware of a secondary application (issue 1);
2. that IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught or
suggested a secondary application that is a project hosting environment
(issue 2);
3. that IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught or
suggested registering an interface for a bridge object in a global interface
table comprising placing a pointer to the interface for the bridge object in the
global interface table (issue 3);
Appeal 2009-002839
Application 10/607,119

15
4. that IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught or
suggested a cookie that identifies a pointer and a location of an interface
(issue 4);
5. that IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught or
suggested a disconnected application extracting a cookie from a location,
accessing the cookie to enable use of a bridge object, and communicating
with a secondary application using an interface for the bridge object
(issue 5);
6. that IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught or
suggested storing a cookie in an environment variable (issue 6); and
7. that IGlobalInterfaceTable and Srinivasan would have taught or
suggested a secondary application and a disconnected application executing
within a same process but in different apartments (issue 7).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
rvb

GATES & COOPER LLP
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES CA 90045