Ex Parte YamamotoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201310282421 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HIROSHI YAMAMOTO ____________ Appeal 2010-008815 Application 10/282,421 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-24, which constitute all the claims pending in this application as claims 3 and 7 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2010-008815 Application 10/282,421 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to systems and methods for preventing unexpected timeouts during http sessions by notifying the user of timeouts and means for the user to change the timeout intervals (see Spec. 2:15-27). Exemplary Claim Claims 1 and 5, with the disputed features highlighted, are illustrative of the invention and read as follows: 1. A network system, comprising: a server which provides application services via a network; and client terminals which receive said application services via said network, wherein said server sends said client terminals a program for generating a window which displays information about timeouts on Web sessions in said application services, and said client terminals display said window based on said program received, wherein said server acquires, during a Web session, the time remaining before a timeout on the Web session for any given one of said client terminals in response to periodic requests that are independent of any action by a user from the given one of the client terminals and sends the time remaining to the given one of said client terminals. 5. A server which provides Web applications to a client via a network, comprising: session object creating means for creating a session object which stores identification information for identifying said client; window providing means for providing a program of a window which displays timeout information contained in said session object, to said client via said network; and extension instruction receiving means for receiving, via said network, extension instructions given to said window; and time extension means for extending the time remaining before said timeout contained in said session object by an extended time period provided by the user by specifying an amount of additional time by which the Web Appeal 2010-008815 Application 10/282,421 3 session is extended, based on said extension instructions received by said extension instruction receiving means. Rejection Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Pinnell (US 6,812,938 B2). (See Ans. 3-12). ANALYSIS With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Pinnell’s disclosure of the displayed information on the user’s screen, as described in column 5 and depicted in Figure 2, teaches the claimed displaying the window “wherein said server acquires, during a Web session, the time remaining before a timeout on the Web session for any given one of said client terminals in response to periodic requests that are independent of any action by a user” (Ans. 4). The Examiner further finds that the count-down timer, which is periodically updated to show the time left for a given session, meets the disputed claim feature (Ans. 13). Regarding claim 5, the Examiner cites the same portion in column 5 of Pinnell for teaching that the session is extended by the user specifying an amount of extension time (Ans. 5). Appellant contends that “Pinnell does not acquire the time remaining for a session and/or periodically request this time remaining independent of any action by the user” (Br. 8). Appellant asserts that Pinnell does not teach that the server acquires “the time remaining before a timeout on the Web session . . . in response to periodic requests from the given one of the client terminals that are independent of any action by a user,” as recited in claim 1 (id.). Additionally, Appellant contends that the portions of Pinnell relied on by the Examiner indicate that “the time by which the life of the session in Appeal 2010-008815 Application 10/282,421 4 Pinnell may be extended is pre-determined” rather than specified by the user, as required by claim 5 (Br. 9). We agree with Appellant’s contention above that Pinnell does not disclose a server acquiring “the time remaining before a timeout on the Web session . . . in response to periodic requests from the given one of the client terminals that are independent of any action by a user” recited in claim 1. However, we disagree with Appellant’s contention above that “time extension means for extending the time remaining . . . by an extended time period provided by the user by specifying an amount of additional time,” recited in claim 5, is not disclosed in Pinnell. In responding to Appellant’s discussion of claim 1, the Examiner assumes (Ans. 13) that because the claim does not require displaying the results of periodic requests, the automated, periodic updates to the count- down timer 30 meet the disputed claim feature. In fact, while the timer counts down the remaining time in the session (see Pinnell, col. 5, ll. 3-6), it does so automatically and the remaining time is not acquired in response to periodic requests from the client terminal. With respect to claim 5, which does not recite acquiring the remaining time in response to periodic requests, we agree with the Examiner that the user in Pinnell specifies the amount of additional time to extend the session by clicking on the icon 28 displayed in a graphical user interface (GUI) showing the control panel 24 (Ans. 14 (citing Pinnell, col. 6, ll. 1-19)). We specifically agree with the Examiner’s position (id.) that each time a user clicks on the icon 28 the remaining time is extended which may be repeated to extend the session indefinitely. In other words, each click extends the remaining time by a set amount of additional time which meets the claimed Appeal 2010-008815 Application 10/282,421 5 feature because no particular manner of “specifying an amount of additional time by which the Web session is extended” is recited in the claim. CONCLUSION On the record before us, because Pinnell does not disclose the disputed limitation of claim 1, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and independent claims 9, 11, 15, 16, 20, 22, and 24, which recite a similar limitation, and their dependent claims as anticipated by Pinnell. However we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claim 5. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed with respect to rejecting claim 5, but reversed with respect to rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8-24. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation