Ex Parte Zahavi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 201612239657 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/239,657 09/26/2008 35856 7590 09/22/2016 SMITH TEMPEL BLAHA LLC Docketing Department Two Ravinia Drive Suite 700 Atlanta, GA 30346 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Y oram Zahavi 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. 06001.1220 3856 EXAMINER PATEL,DHAIRYAA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2455 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2016 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): mtempel@srtslaw.com docket@srtslaw.com gs mi th @srtslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YORAM ZARA VI, and MORAN COHEN Appeal2013-010366 Application 12/239,657 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal2013-010366 Application 12/239,657 TI'-JVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to accelerating data communication associated with browsing web pages or otherwise accessing content through the Internet or other global or local network. Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1 and 16 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method that improves data transportation between a plurality of endpoints and a plurality of content servers, wherein the transportation between the endpoints and the content servers is based on the Internet Protocol ("IP"), the method comprising the actions of: intercepting a data transportation between the plurality of endpoints and the plurality of content severs at an intermediate device, wherein the data transportation is a markup language ("ML") file originating from a content server and directed toward a destination endpoint that requested the ML file; modifying the intercepted ML file to add: a browser link associated with a compound object; and an instruction to activate a software code that is embedded within the compound object; sending the modified ML file toward the destination endpoint; the intermediate device receiving a request from the destination endpoint for the compound object, wherein the request was generated by the destination endpoint because of the added browser link associated with the compound object; the intermediate device responding to the request for the compound object by: identifying and retrieving one or more browser objects from a cache; embedding the retrieved one or more browser objects into the compound object; 2 Appeal2013-010366 Application 12/239,657 embedding the software code into the compound object; and sending the compound object to the destination endpoint; wherein the software code, when activated at the destination endpoint per the added instruction, is operable to adapt the modified ML file to enable retrieval of the one or more browser objects that were embedded into the compound object. 16. A method that determines the existence of an object within the cache of a user endpoint, wherein communication between one or more user endpoints and one or more servers is based on Internet Protocol ("IP"), the method comprising the actions of: a. receiving a request for a browser object from a user endpoint; b. preparing a response to the request for the browser object that includes the requested browser object and a cookie, wherein the content of the cookie is associated with the browser object; c. retrieving the cookie from a subsequent request received from the user endpoint; d. parsing the cookie; and e. storing representative information about the browser object associated with the cookie, wherein the browser object associated with the cookie is expected to be stored in the cache of the user endpoint; wherein a browser object is an object that is fetched automatically by the browser. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Jawahar (US 2008/0172488 Al; pub. July 17, 3 Appeal2013-010366 Application 12/239,657 2008), Schroeder (US 2005/0021862 Al; pub. Jan. 27, 2005), and Fikes (US 7,779,103 Bl; iss. Aug. 17, 2010). Claims 16-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Fikes and Glommen (US 2002/014 7772 Al; pub. Oct. 10, 2002). Claims 24--28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Schroeder, Fikes, and Glommen. ISSUES Appellants' contentions present us with the following dispositive issues: A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Jawahar, Schroeder, and Fikes teaches or suggests modifYing the intercepted ML file to add ... an instruction to activate a software code that is embedded within the compound object ("modifying" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1? B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Fikes and Glommen teaches or suggests the following limitations of claim 16: (i) receiving a request for a browser object from a user endpoint ("receiving" limitation); (ii) preparing a response to the request for the browser object that includes the requested browser object and a cookie, wherein the content of the cookie is associated with the browser object ("preparing" limitation); (iii) storing representative information about the browser object associated with the cookie, wherein the browser object associated with the cookie is expected to be stored in the cache of the user endpoint ("storing" limitation); 4 Appeal2013-010366 Application 12/239,657 and (iv) wherein a browser object is an object that is fetched automatically by the browser ("browser object" limitation). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 16-23. Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner has failed to establish that claims 1-15 and 24--28 are unpatentable over the cited prior art. Issue A: Claims 1-15 and 24-28 The Examiner relies on Schroeder to teach the "modifying" limitation. Final Act. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds Schroeder teaches adding a modified link from the link mapping database, which will get activated by retrieving video, graphics, or audio and displaying it to the user. Final Act. 4. The Examiner further finds as soon as the browser receives the web page, it automatically retrieves browser objects embedded in the compound object (URL), which teaches the claimed limitation. Ans. 28-29. Appellants argue Schroeder describes modifying an existing browser link with a link modifier, which does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 11-12. We agree. The cited sections of Schroeder show an existing link in a web page being modified by first manually editing the link to include a keyword (e.g., adding CONTENT_GPX to the URL) and processing the link by a link modifier to match and replace keywords in the link based on a mapping database (e.g., replacing "CONTENT_GPX" with "www.deliv_net_A.com"). See Schroeder Figs 5A-5C, Fig. 6, i-fi-158- 61. Although the Examiner is correct that the browser retrieves the associated content (e.g., video, graphics, audio), we agree with Appellants 5 Appeal2013-010366 Application 12/239,657 this is not sufficient to teach adding an instruction to activate a software code. For the reasons stated above, we are persuaded the Examiner has not established the combination of Jawahar, Schroeder, and Fikes teaches or suggests the "modifying" limitation recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on the additional reference of record (Glommen) to teach or suggest this limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of: (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 24, which recites a limitation substantially similar to the "modifying" limitation and is rejected on the same basis; and (3) dependent claims 2-15 and 25-27. Independent claim 28 recites embedding in the parsed response ... an executable function. Appellants argue this claim is allowable for the same reasons as independent claim 1. See App. Br. 21-23. The Examiner relies on the same paragraphs of Schroeder used to reject the "modifying" limitation recited in claim 1. Final Act. 19. As discussed supra, these paragraphs teach modifying links in an HTML file. We agree with Appellants that the modification of links does not teach embedding an executable function. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 28. Issue B: Claims 16--23 Appellants contend the combination of Fikes and Glommen does not teach or suggest the "receiving," "preparing," "storing," and "browser object" limitations recited in claim 16. App. Br. 16-20; Reply Br. 20-25. Specifically, Appellants argue the paragraph cited from Fikes for the "receiving" limitation deals with a relationship between a browser 6 Appeal2013-010366 Application 12/239,657 application and a user, and that the browser cannot receive a request from the user end point because the browser is part of the user equipment. App. Br. 18. Appellants argue the "preparing" limitation is not taught by Fikes because claim 16 requires the prepared response include two different types of data-a browser object and a cookie-and the Examiner incorrectly asserts the cookie taught by Fikes is equivalent to the claimed browser object. App. Br. 17-18. With respect to the "storing" limitation, Appellants argue the claimed method uses the cookie to carry information associated with a browser object that is sent to a user, which is different than using a cookie to carry a user ID as taught in Fikes or storing a path that visitors take through a website as taught by Glommen. App. Br. 16. Additionally, Appellants argue the "browser object" limitation is not taught by the cited references because it is clear the cited paragraphs of Glommen do not teach or suggest an object that is fetched automatically by the browser, but instead describe information that is written in the cookie and the cookie format. App. Br. 19. We are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Fikes teaches the "receiving" limitation. Ans. 31. Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner does not find the browser receives the request from the user end point, but rather finds Fikes teaches the user's browser is the end point from which the request is received. Id. We agree with the Examiner's findings that the cited sections of Fikes teach receiving a request from a user's web browser application ("user endpoint") for a web page ("browser object"). See Fikes 9:19-27. We further agree with the Examiner that Fikes teaches the "preparing" limitation. Ans. 31. The cited sections of Fikes teach preparing a response 7 Appeal2013-010366 Application 12/239,657 to the request that includes the web page ("requested browser object") and both a regular cookie and a secret cookie ("a cookie") that are included (associated with) in the requested web page. See Fikes 9:20-38). Appellants' argument that the Examiner equates the browser object to the cookie is not persuasive, because as previously discussed, the Examiner equates the web page to the browser object. With respect to the "storing" limitation, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error. As acknowledged by Appellants, the cited sections of Glommen teach storing a path (in a cookie) that visitors take through a website. App Br. 17; see Glommen i-fi-154--55. Appellants fail to convince us that the path analysis data stored in the cookie does not teach or suggest storing representative information about the visited web page ("browser object"). 1 Furthermore, Appellants do not present any arguments specifically addressing the Examiner's findings (Ans. 32) that Fikes teaches or suggests the web page (browser object) is expected to be stored in the cache of the user endpoint. 2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012)(" A 1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider whether the claimed "associated with" language in the "storing" limitation of claim 16 satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BP AI 2008) (precedential) (A claim is indefinite if it amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions). In particular, it appears the "associated with" language may be interpreted to: (i) require the "representative information" be associated with the cookie (as argued by Appellants and consistent with the findings made by the Examiner); or (ii) merely require the "browser object" to be associated with the cookie (i.e., not require the stored representative information to be associated with the cookie). 2 Although not relied upon for our decision, we further observe the claimed "wherein the browser object associated with the cookie is expected to be stored in the cache of the user endpoint" (emphasis added) does not require 8 Appeal2013-010366 Application 12/239,657 statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."). Finally, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that the cited paragraphs of Glommen do not teach the "browser object" limitation. We observe that Appellants incorrectly refer to this limitation as reciting "the browser object" (i.e., claiming antecedent basis back to the browser object recited in previous limitations). See App. Br. 19. However, this limitation in fact recites "a browser object" (i.e., does not claim antecedent basis back to the prior browser object limitation). The Examiner finds Glommen teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 32 (citing Glommen i-fi-154--55). Appellants do not persuade us that the "cookie" taught by Glommen is not a browser object fetched automatically by the browser. For the reasons stated above, Appellants fail to persuade us the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Fikes and Glommen teaches or suggests the disputed limitations recited in claim 16. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 16 and its dependent claims 17-22, which are not argued separately. the browser object to be stored in the cache and does not provide any limitation on the steps performed in the claimed method. The claim language thus appears to be optional language that recites an intended use of the cookie and not a positive limitation on the claim. See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates."). 9 Appeal2013-010366 Application 12/239,657 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 16-23 and reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-15 and 24--28. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation