Ex Parte Vandewalle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

12438693 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/438,693 10/06/2009
21839 7590 08/16/2016
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jean-Jacques Vandewalle
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.
103 23 26-0004 71 7818
EXAMINER
ALGIBHAH, HAMZA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEAN-JACQUES VANDEWALLE
Appeal2015-002493
Application 12/438,693
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, KAMRAN JIVANI, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Gemalto SA. App. Br.
1.
Appeal2015-002493
Application 12/438,693
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to customizing a web application using
a customization program or customization data stored on a local server.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as
follows:
1. A method for customising a Web application, the Web
application to be executed on a terminal by means of a browser
provided on the terminal, upon a request sent from the browser
to a Web server hosting the Web application, comprising:
hosting at least one customisation program and/or
customisation data by a local server, said local server being (i)
directly connected to the terminal and (ii) specific to and
belonging to a user operating the terminal, and
mixing the at least one customisation program and/or
customisation data supplied by the local server with data relating
to the Web application corresponding to a processing of the
request, the data being supplied by the Web server.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 3-12, 16-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Valtchev (US 2010/0064208 Al; Mar. 11,
2010) and Milojkovic (US 2008/0096537 Al; Apr. 24, 2008). Ans. 3-8.
Claims 2, 13-15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Valtchev, Milojkovic, and Lu (US 2006/0294023 Al; Dec.
28, 2006). Ans. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
2
Appeal2015-002493
Application 12/438,693
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Valtchev and Milojkovic teaches or suggests a "local server" as claimed.
App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 3-8. In particular, Appellant argues Valtchev does
not disclose a local server because V altchev teaches a centralized server that
stores customization data. App. Br. 7-8. Appellant argues Milojkovic's
local server is "entirely unrelated" to the claimed "local server" because
Milojkovic relates to installation of software on a mobile device instead of
customization of web applications. Id. at 8-9.
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Valtchev and Milojkovic teaches or suggests a "local
server," as claimed. Appellant's argument regarding Valtchev is not
persuasive because the Examiner did not rely on Valtchev as teaching a local
server. Ans. 9-10. Appellant argues Milojkovic also does not teach a local
server as claimed because Milojkovic relates to installing software on a
mobile device, but this argument is unpersuasive because it attacks the
reference individually instead of the combination as a whole. In re Merck &
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
3
Appeal2015-002493
Application 12/438,693
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that V altchev teaches a centralized
server that stored user customization data for a web application. Ans. 9-10
(citing Valtchev i-fi-173, 74, 79). Milojkovic teaches a local server installed
on a user's mobile device. Ans. 10; see also Milojkovic i174. We find no
error with the Examiner's finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have been motivated to use Milojkovic's local server in place of Valtchev's
centralized server such that each user device would store customization data
for a particular user. Ans. 10. As the Examiner finds, an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have been motivated to make this combination "to minimize
the bandwidth needed to deliver the customisation program and/or
customisation data to the clients." Id.
Appellant fails to identify an error in the Examiner's reasoning and
has identified no persuasive evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings.
Accordingly, we adopt the findings of the Examiner and sustain the rejection
of claim 1 over Valtchev and Milojkovic.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites "The method according to claim 1 wherein the local
server is also removably connectable to the terminal." Appellant argues the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 as unpatentable over Valtchev and
Milojkovic because Milojkovic's local server is implemented solely in
software and, therefore, not removably connectable to the terminal. App.
Br. 14. The Examiner finds Milojkovic teaches a local server that is
installed on a mobile device. Ans. 12. The Examiner finds the local server
is "removably connectable" because it can be uninstalled from the mobile
device. Id.
4
Appeal2015-002493
Application 12/438,693
We apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms,
consistent with the specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Specification does not define the term
"removably connectable," and Appellant has not identified any persuasive
intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the term should be limited to a hardware
connection. We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "removably connectable" in the context of claim 20
includes a software application that is capable of being uninstalled from the
terminal. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error,
and we sustain the rejection of claim 20.
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellant
has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Valtchev and Milojkovic. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues the patentability of independent
claims 10 and 16 for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 11-13.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 10 and 16 for the
same reasons as claim 1. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims
2-9, 11-15, and 17-19, which Appellant has not argued separately. App.
Br. 13-14.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellant
has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 as
unpatentable over Valtchev and Milojkovic. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 20.
5
Appeal2015-002493
Application 12/438,693
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20.
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
6