Ex Parte Bhogal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2013

11077328 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KULVIR SINGH BHOGAL and
ALEXANDRE POLOZOFF
____________________

Appeal 2010-011025
Application 11/077,328
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011025
Application 11/077,328

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-6, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “an improved data
processing system and in particular to a data processing system and method
for mapping a user to an application version.” Spec. 1 § Tech. Field.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of facilitating access of a user, based solely on a
user identifier, to one of a first application version and a second
application version in a data processing system network, the
method comprising:
receiving, by the data processing system, a first
application service request from a client, wherein the first
application service request is directed to a first network address;
responsive to receiving the first application service
request, identifying, by the data processing system, the first
application version;
receiving, by the data processing system, the user
identifier from the client, wherein only the user identifier is
needed to continue processing the first application service
request;
responsive to receiving the user identifier, identifying, by
the data processing system, the second application version,
wherein the second application version is selected solely based
on the user identifier;
Appeal 2010-011025
Application 11/077,328

3
responsive to identifying the second application version,
substituting, by the data processing system, the first application
service request with a second application service request that is
directed to a second network address; and
returning, by the data processing system, to the first
network address the second application version.

References
Davis
Chen
US 2003/0078961 A1
US 2005/0091344 A1
Apr. 24, 2003
Apr. 28, 2005

Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chen and Davis. Ans. 4-7.

ISSUE 1
Appellants argue “neither Chen nor Davis nor their combination
teaches or suggests ‘responsive to receiving the first application service
request, identifying, by the data processing system, the first application
version,’” (App. Br. 10) and
Chen also does not teach or suggest “responsive to identifying
the second application version, substituting, by the data
processing system, the first application service request with a
second application service request that is directed to a second
network address”, or “returning, by the data processing system,
to the first network address the second application version,”
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13. Each of these arguments relies on
Appellants’ assertion that Chen differs from the recited invention because
Chen relates to different versions of data, whereas the invention recites
different application versions. App. Br. 10-11, 13-14.
Appeal 2010-011025
Application 11/077,328

4
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Davis and
Chen teaches “receiving, by the data processing system, the user identifier
from the client, wherein only the user identifier is needed to continue
processing the first application service request,” and “responsive to
receiving the user identifier, identifying, by the data processing system, the
second application version, wherein the second application version is
selected solely based on the user identifier,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Chen teaches every limitation of claim 1
except that Chen teaches “first and second data versions” instead of “first
and second application versions.” See Ans. 5. The Examiner finds “Davis
teaches that it is well known to redirect client requests to different versions
of an application service based on user identifier.”Ans. 5. Thus, Appellants’
arguments that Chen does not teach different application versions are
inapposite because the rejection relies on Davis, not Chen, for this feature.
Ans. 8-9. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of error in the
finding that the combination of Davis and Chen teaches the above-identified
features.

ISSUE 2
Appellants also argue Chen
does not teach or suggest “receiving, by the data processing
system, the user identifier from the client, wherein only the user
identifier is needed to continue processing the first application
service request,” or “responsive to receiving the user identifier,
identifying, by the data processing system, the second
application version, wherein the second application version is
Appeal 2010-011025
Application 11/077,328

5
selected solely based on the user identifier” as recited in claim
1.
App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue Chen uses client information to
determine priority and browser type but does not suggest identifying a
second application version selected solely on the user identifier, responsive
to receipt of the user identifier. App. Br. 12. Appellants assert Chen “does
not utilize user identification as a sole criteria to identify a second
application version,” rather Chen uses “overhead information in conjunction
with user identification for data selection.” App. Br. 12.
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Davis and
Chen teaches “receiving, by the data processing system, the user identifier
from the client, wherein only the user identifier is needed to continue
processing the first application service request” and “responsive to receiving
the user identifier, identifying, by the data processing system, the second
application version, wherein the second application version is selected solely
based on the user identifier,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Chen obtains the identity of the client and routes
a client request using the identity of the client. Ans. 4 (citing Chen ¶¶ 10,
87). Again, to the extent Appellants arguments attack the difference between
Chen’s data versions and the recited application versions, the rejection relies
upon Davis for this teaching, as discussed supra. To the extent Appellants
argue Chen identifies a second version by using information other than the
user identification, rather than using only the user identification, we
disagree. Chen discloses the “client request may be routed using an identity
Appeal 2010-011025
Application 11/077,328

6
of the client , a quality of content, a load on at least one server, a data
distribution on at least one server, and/or a capacity of at least one server.”
Chen ¶ 10 (emphasis added). Chen therefore discloses using any
combination of the information available, including using only one element
of information. Thus, using only the identity of the client falls within Chen’s
disclosure and meets the recited feature. Therefore, we find no error in the
Examiner’s finding that Chen teaches the above-identified recited
limitations.

ISSUE 3
Appellants next argue “Davis discloses providing different instances
of the same application,” not different versions of an application. App. Br.
15.
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Davis teaches redirecting client
request to different versions of an application?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner explains that Davis was introduced “to show that it
would have been obvious to direct users to different versions of an
application.” Ans. 8. The Examiner finds Davis teaches directing users to
different versions of an application by pointing to the portion of Davis that
explains how users are identified and directed to an appropriate URL for that
user. Ans. 9 (citing Davis ¶ 41). We agree with the Examiner that Davis
teaches directing different users to different versions of an application based
on the identification of the user. Appellants’ argument that Davis teaches
different instances, not different versions, of an application (Ap. Br. 15) is
Appeal 2010-011025
Application 11/077,328

7
unpersuasive. We find instances of an application fall within the broadest
reasonable interpretation of versions construed consistent with Appellants’
Specification. Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion that Davis teaches redirecting client requests to different versions
of an application based on a user’s identification.

ISSUE 4
Finally, Appellants assert the Examiner has not provided sufficient
rationale for combination of Davis and Chen “because a teaching in Davis
that the technique disclosed therein is useful in program development for
testing purposes would not suggest modifying Chen as proposed.” App. Br.
15.
Issue: Did the Examiner err in combining Davis and Chen?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine Davis and Chen because Davis’ “disclosed
technique is useful in program development for testing purposes.” Ans. 9.
Moreover, the Examiner finds in the context of web services and
applications that Chen’s access to different data versions through a URL is
similar to Appellants’ access of different application versions through a
URL. Ans. 8.
We note that the Supreme Court has held that in analyzing an
obviousness rationale, a court need not find specific teachings, but rather
may consider “the background knowledge possessed by a person having
ordinary skill in the art” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person
Appeal 2010-011025
Application 11/077,328

8
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)). Moreover, an artisan is presumed to possess both skill and common
sense. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Thus, we find the Examiner has
provided a valid articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to
support the conclusion of obviousness with respect to the proposed
combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (2007). Therefore, we find no error
in the Examiner’s combination of Davis and Chen.

CONCLUSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2,
4-6, 21, and 22.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6,
21, and 22 is affirmed.

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD