DATENLOTSEN INFORMATIONSSYSTEME GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 10, 2022

2021000114 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2022)

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. 15/318,977 12/15/2016 DOMINIK MAASS AJ/DAT 1601 US-PAT 8455 96897 7590 03/10/2022 THOT PATENT POSTFACH 10 17 56 RATINGEN, 40837 GERMANY EXAMINER WOOLCOCK, MADHU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2022 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 DOMINIK MAASS and STEPHAN SACHSE Appeal 2021-000114 Application 15/318,977 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12-18, 20, and 22-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-11, 19, and 21 have been canceled. We reverse. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Datenlotsen Informationssystem GmbH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000114 Application 15/318,977 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a client-server system and terminal. Title. Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 12. A client-server system comprising: a server: a plurality of clients; and server-side computer resources which are allocated to the plurality of clients, wherein, the server-side computer resources are allocated to the plurality clients based on services requested by the plurality of clients, and the server-side computing resources allocated to a particular client of the plurality of clients are input-dependently distributed by the particular client independently of the other plurality of clients dependent on at least one input to the particular client so as to implement a client-side and input- dependent multitasking. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Sumimoto US 5,522,070 May 28, 1996 Anfindsen et al. US 2004/0044648 A1 Mar. 4, 2004 Sorenson et al. US 2008/0040682 A1 Feb. 14, 2008 Sweeney US 2015/0326498 A1 Nov. 12, 2015 Appeal 2021-000114 Application 15/318,977 3 REJECTIONS Claims 12-16, 20, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney in view of Sumimoto.2 Claims 17, 18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney and Sumimoto in view of Anfindsen. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney, Sumimoto, and Anfindsen further view of Sorenson. OPINION 35 U.S.C. §103 Claims 12-16, 20, 24, and 25 “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). [A]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. 2 We note that dependent claim 24 is directed to “[a] terminal which is configured to implement the particular client in the client-server system as recited in claim 12.” We note that to be a dependent claim, the claim must further limit the independent claim, but claim 24 does not further limit independent claim 12 and is directed to only a sub-portion of independent claim 12. The language of claim 24 also does not include all the “client- server system” limitations of independent claim 12. Moreover, as an independent claim, the “terminal” would lack various hardware items recited in claim 12 directed to the “server” making the scope of the claim indefinite. We leave it to the Examiner to further evaluate claims 24 and 25 in any further prosecution on the merits. Appeal 2021-000114 Application 15/318,977 4 In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections for the reasons expressed in the Appeal Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis. With respect to independent claim 12, Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in the rejection of independent claim 12 because the technical effect of the present invention is that a client will always be able to provide quasi-parallel operations. In other words, a client will not block a task from being completed merely because another task requiring a higher processing and/or calculation is being concurrently performed. The above-required feature of independent claim 12 expressly requires that “the server-side computing resources allocated to a particular client” be “input-dependently distributed by the particular client.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues that the Specification in paragraphs 19, 20, and 23 defines “input-dependent” and “multitasking” and the combination of the Sweeney and Sumimoto references does not teach or Appeal 2021-000114 Application 15/318,977 5 suggest the invention as recited in the claim limitation “the server-side computing resources allocated to a particular client of the plurality of clients are input-dependently distributed by the particular client independently of the other plurality of clients dependent on at least one input to the particular client so as to implement a client-side and input-dependent multitasking.” Appeal Br. 7-10. Appellant further argues that the Examiner is overlooking the clear wording of independent claim 12. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues the Sumimoto reference makes clear that “the server-side computing resources allocated to a particular client of the plurality of clients” are not “input-dependently distributed by the particular client independently of the other plurality of clients dependent on at least one input to the particular client so as to implement a client-side and input-dependent multitasking,” as claimed in independent claim 12. Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, but the Examiner not does not address the claim terminology specifically as interpreted in light of the express definitions in the Specification. Rather, the Examiner finds that the rejection is in view of the language in the claims and that the language of “so as to implement a client-side and input-dependent multitasking” is an intended use limitation. Ans. 4. We disagree with the Examiner and find that the “input-dependent multitasking” is specifically defining the type of multitasking and percentages of use of server-side resources as set forth in paragraph 23 of the Specification. The Examiner further finds that this exclusive control by a client of a server allocated resource to perform a task based on client commands is unambiguously within the scope of server-side computing resources allocated to Appeal 2021-000114 Application 15/318,977 6 a particular client of the plurality of clients are input-dependently distributed by the particular client independently of the other plurality of clients dependent on at least one input to the particular client so as to implement a client-side and input- dependent tasks. Ans. 4 (emphasis added). We disagree with the Examiner and find that the Examiner has not interpreted the claim language properly in light of the express definitions recited in the Specification. Consequently, the Examiner has not properly interpreted the claim language, “taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13-16, 20, 24, and 25. Claims 17, 18, 22, and 23 With respect to claims 17, 18, 22, and, 23, Appellant additionally addresses the secondary references and relies upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 12. Appeal Br. 14-15. Because the Examiner has not shown how the additional prior art references remedy the noted deficiency in the base combination, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 17, 18, 22, and 23 for the same reasons. Appeal 2021-000114 Application 15/318,977 7 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 12-18, 20, 22-25. More specifically: We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-16, 20, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney in view of Sumimoto. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney and Sumimoto in view of Anfindsen. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney, Sumimoto, and Anfindsen further view of Sorenson. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 12-16, 20, 24, 25 103 Sweeney, Sumimoto 12-16, 20, 24, 25 17, 18, 22 103 Sweeney, Sumimoto, Anfindsen 17, 18, 22 23 103 Sweeney, Sumimoto, Anfindsen, Sorenson 23 Overall Outcome 12-18, 20, 22-25 REVERSED