Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2020

13736034 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2020)

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.
13/736,034 01/07/2013 Joshua Ari Danziger 25832.2065 (L2065) 9296
101198 7590 08/27/2020
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Google
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
MERCADO VARGAS, ARIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2020 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):
patents@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte JOSHUA ARI DANZIGER, AMOD KARVE,
ZACHARY ERIK LLOYD, and YOSSI KAHLON
_____________

Appeal 2019-002653
Application 13/736,034
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LARRY J. HUME, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at an operational transformations (OT) proxy
executed by a processor and from a thin client, a first request to
make a first change to a first version of an electronic document,
wherein the first version comprises a copy of the electronic
document on the thin client, wherein the thin client is unable to
support transformation of low-level commands comprising
mutations of the electronic document, wherein the first request
is a first high-level command that represents the first change to
the electronic document and that operates at a higher level of
Appeal 2019-002653
Application 13/736,034

2

abstraction than the low-level commands, and wherein the thin
client is able to support the first change;
converting, at the OT proxy, the first high-level
command of the first request into a first one of the low-level
commands for making the first change to the first version of the
electronic document;
receiving, at the OT proxy and from a server that
coordinates mutations to the electronic document from one or
more smart clients that are able to support the low-level
commands, a second one of the low-level commands for
making a second change to a second version of the electronic
document, wherein the second version comprises another copy
of the electronic document on the server, wherein a copy of the
first version of the electronic document and a copy of the
second version of the electronic document are stored on the OT
proxy, and wherein the smart clients do not send the low-level
commands directly to the OT proxy;
transforming, at the OT proxy, the second one of the low-
level commands into a third one of the !ow-level commands
based on the pending first one of the low-level commands that
has not yet been applied to the electronic document by the
server;
transmitting, from the OT proxy to the thin client, a first
response corresponding to the third one of the low-level
commands, wherein the first response is a second high-level
command that represents the second change, and wherein the
thin client is able to support the second change; and
transmitting, from the OT proxy to the server, a second
response comprising the first one of the low-level commands.

Appeal 2019-002653
Application 13/736,034

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE1
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8–11, 13, 16, 18–20, 22, and 26–28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Miller (US 2013/0120368 A1, May 16, 2013)
and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”).
Claims 3, 5–7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23–25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Miller, AAPA, and Nakamura (US 7,310,657 B2,
Dec. 18, 2007).
ANALYSIS2
We have reviewed Appellant’s3 arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–28.
Appellant argues independent claim 1 recites “transmitting, from the
OT proxy to the thin client, a first response corresponding to the third one of
the low-level commands, wherein the first response is a second high-level
command that represents the second change, and wherein the thin client is
able to support the second change.” Appeal Br. 10–12 (“the disputed

1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
Aug. 9, 2018; the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Feb. 14, 2019; the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed Apr. 6, 2018; Appellant’s Specification
(“Spec.”) submitted Jan. 7, 2013; and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed Dec. 14, 2018.
2 The rejection of claims 1–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn by
the Examiner. Ans. 2.
3 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Google LLC is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002653
Application 13/736,034

4

limitations”) (emphases omitted). Independent claims 10 and 19 recite
similar subject matter.
The Examiner’s rejection only cites to Miller paragraph 51 and Figure
3 for teaching the disputed limitations. Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant argues “Miller teaches that the modeling client at the client
device generates mutations itself from modifications to the model data.
Miller does not teach that the modeling client receives a high-level
command from an OT proxy as a result of the modeling client being unable
to transform the modifications into the mutations.” Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner determines “even if there is no teaching in a reference
that ‘a thin client that is unable to support transformation of low-level
commands comprising mutations of the electronic document,’ there is no
reason that a ‘first response’ cannot be transmitted ‘from the OT proxy to the
thin client.’” Ans. 5.
The Appellant further contends, and we agree:
Miller teaches that a user may make modifications of model
data at a client device. Thus, Miller teaches that the client
device itself is used to generate the modifications or
“mutations” to the model data. Miller does not teach or suggest
any client device that is unable to transform the modifications
into the mutations as would be required to teach or suggest the
features of the claims under the alleged interpretation from the
Examiner.
Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant and find that our interpretation of the cited
portions of Miller coincides with that of Appellant. In particular, the
Examiner has not established, and we do not readily find, how the cited
portions of Miller teach or suggest the disputed limitations. To affirm the
Appeal 2019-002653
Application 13/736,034

5

Examiner on this record would require considerable speculation on our part.
We decline to engage in speculation.
Although Appellant makes other arguments in the Briefs, we do not
address them because we find this argument is dispositive of the appeal.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and the corresponding dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

REVERSED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 8–
11, 13, 16,
18–20, 22,
26–28
103 Miller, AAPA 1, 2, 4, 8–
11, 13, 16,
18–20, 22,
26–28
3, 5–7, 12,
14–15, 17,
21, 23–25
103 Miller, AAPA,
Nakamura
3, 5–7, 12,
14–15, 17,
21, 23–25
Overall
Outcome
1–28