Ex Parte Yan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2015

12054631 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/054,631 03/25/2008 Shunguo Yan
50170 7590 12/21/2015
IBM CORP, (WIP)
c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
17304 PRESTON ROAD
SUITE 200
DALLAS, TX 75252
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.
AUS920040623US2 6414
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TRUONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2015 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUNGUO YAN
Appeal2013-001935
Application 12/054,631
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 4--7, 9--13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 29--40. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2013-001935
Application 12/054,631
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's claimed invention "relates to systems, methods, and
media for managing sessions for a client on a portal, particularly for
managing multiple sessions with different applications of the portal." Spec.
i-f 1. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for managing sessions, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor on a portal server, a request
from a user for content from a backend application running on a
backend server;
determining, by the processor, whether an application
session has already been established by the portal server with
the backend application, wherein the determination is
performed by searching a session information cached for
existing application session data related to the backend
application;
responsive to the application session data existing in the
session information cache indicating that the application session
with the backend application has already been established,
inserting, by the processor, the application session data from the
session information cached into the request; and
forwarding, by the processor, the request with the
application session data to the backend application.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9--13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 29--40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eidelman (US 7,873,734 Bl; Jan.
18, 2011) and Bazinet (US 2003/0167298 Al; Sept. 4, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites, among other things, "determining, by the processor,
whether an application session has already been established by the portal
2
Appeal2013-001935
Application 12/054,631
server with the backend application." The Examiner found Bazinet teaches
this limitation. Final Act. 3 (citing Bazinet i1i133, 34, 36; Fig. 3).
Specifically, the Examiner found Bazinet's "portal application creates ...
generic objects to establish a secure communication with the backend
application" and Bazinet's "portal application ... equate[ s] to [the]
application session and [Bazinet' backend application ... equate[s] to the
backend application." Ans. 4.
Appellant argues the cited portions of Bazinet describe creating
objects for backend applications, not determining whether an application
session has already been established as required by claim 1. See App. Br.
10-11; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellant contends "that object and
application may be created on a data processing system without a connection
ever being made by the portal server to a backend application." Reply Br. 3.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments, and we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The cited
portions of Bazinet disclose a portal application that adds generic objects to
a database corresponding to secure data objects in a backend application.
See, e.g., Bazinet i133. The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence
or reasoning to establish this disclosure teaches or suggests the
"determining" limitation at issue, nor has the Examiner found Eidelman
remedies this deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. Because the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4--7, 9--
13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 29--40 suffers from a similar flaw, we also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Should prosecution continue, including review for allowance, the
Examiner may consider whether claims 13 and 15 lack antecedent basis for
3
Appeal2013-001935
Application 12/054,631
the term "computer readable storage medium." The Examiner may also
consider whether claims 13 and 15 are directed to non-statutory subject
matter because the term "computer readable storage medium" encompasses
transitory signals. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1859---64
(PTAB 2013) (precedential); See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9--
13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and29--40.
REVERSED
jagr
4