Ex Parte Blaukopf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2013

10303805 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL BLAUKOPF and DOV ZANDMAN
____________

Appeal 2010-010624
Application 10/303,805
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JEFFERY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010624
Application 10/303,805

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-11, 13, 15-22, 30-39, 44-51, 53-61, 65, 66, and 71-78 . We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a mediator which
translates encoded messages from a client into standard web service request
formats. A code generator is provided to automatically create optimized and
specialized client and server code using templates, in which the code is
optimized according to the characteristics of the client and the specified
services. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of client/server communication comprising the
steps of:

identifying characteristics of a client and a service to be obtained for
said client from an application server, said client being a thin client
operating in a first platform independent environment, said application
server operating in a second platform-independent environment;

responsively to said characteristics and said service, and external to
said client:

automatically compiling a client program for said client from a
platform independent source code,

automatically defining a first message format that is optimized
according to said characteristics and said service, and
Appeal 2010-010624
Application 10/303,805

3
automatically generating a mediator program, said mediator program
being adapted to process messages encoded in said first message format;

sending said client program to said client;

wherein said client program enables said client to generate a request
for said service and encode said request according to said first message
format to define an encoded message;

receiving said encoded message from said client at a mediator server
(20) disposed external to said client;

executing said mediator program in said mediator server (20) to re-
encode said encoded message into a second message format that is
acceptable to said application server to define a re-encoded message,
wherein a size of said re-encoded message exceeds a size of said encoded
message; and

transmitting said re-encoded message to a provider of said service,

wherein said client program is compiled from a predefined template
and

wherein said mediator program is generated responsively to said
template.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 8, 9, 20, 30, 31, 36, 38, 49, 53, 54,
59, 65, and 76 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Jing et al., Client-Server Computing in Mobile Environments, ACM
Computing Surveys, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 117-157 (1999) hereinafter
“Jing,” and further in view of Taylor (US 2003/0093551 A1;
published May 15, 2003), and Chidambaran (US 6,327,606 B1; issued
Dec. 4, 2001).
Appeal 2010-010624
Application 10/303,805

4
2. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 15, 22, 35, 44, 51, 58, 71, and 78
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jing, Taylor,
Chidambaran as applied to claims 1, 8, 30, 36, 53, and 59 above, and
further in view of Edgar (US 2002/0087729 A1; published Jul. 4,
2002).
3. The Examiner rejected claims 4-6, 10, 19, 32-34, 39, 48, 55-57, 66,
and 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jing,
Taylor, Chidambaran as applied to claims 1, 8, 24, 30, 36, 53, and 59
above, and further in view of Shakib (US 6,321,274 B1; issued Nov.
20, 2001).
4. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 13, and 61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jing, Taylor, Chidambaran as
applied to claims 8 and 59 above, and further in view of Brassard
(US 6,742,175 B1; issued May 25, 2004).
5. The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jing, Taylor, Chidambaran as applied to
claims 8 and 36 above, and further in view of Karakashian (US
2004/0064503 A1; published Apr. 1, 2004).
6. The Examiner rejected claims 17, 18, 46, 47, 73, and 74 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jing, Taylor,
Chidambaran as applied to claims 8, 36, and 59 above, and further in
view of Hattori (US 2003/0009539 A1; published Jan. 9, 2003).
7. The Examiner rejected claims 21, 37, 50, 60, 72, and 77 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jing, Taylor,
Chidambaran as applied to claims 8, 36, and 59 above, and further in
view of Applicant admitted prior art.
Appeal 2010-010624
Application 10/303,805

5
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Jing, Taylor, and Chidambaran teaches the limitations
of:
(i) automatically defining a first message format that is
optimized according to said characteristics and said service; …
(ii) receiving said encoded message from said client at a
mediator server (20) disposed external to said client; [and] …
(iii) executing said mediator program in said mediator server
(20) to re-encode said encoded message into a second message
format that is acceptable to said application server to define a
re-encoded message, wherein a size of said re-encoded message
exceeds a size of said encoded message; and
transmitting said re-encoded message to a provider of said
service

as recited in claim 1. (Emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Jing does not teach the limitations of:
(i) automatically defining a first message format that is
optimized according to said characteristics and said service; …
(ii) receiving said encoded message from said client at a
mediator server (20) disposed external to said client; [and] …
(iii) executing said mediator program in said mediator server
(20) to re-encode said encoded message into a second message
format that is acceptable to said application server to define a
re-encoded message, wherein a size of said re-encoded message
exceeds a size of said encoded message; and
transmitting said re-encoded message to a provider of said
service

as recited in claim 1. (Emphasis added).
Appeal 2010-010624
Application 10/303,805

6
Appellants specifically argue that Jing’s section 3.1, contrary to
Examiner’s finding that it teaches feature (i) of claim 1, does not relate to
defining an optimized message format, but rather relates to optimization of
applications for use on a portable information appliance (Br. 10).
We do not agree. The Examiner found (Ans. 19) that Jing discloses
creating messages using “CSI/SSI protocols [which] facilitate highly
effective data reduction and protocol optimization.” § 2.1.2, pg. 123. Jing
also teaches that by creating messages using this format, traffic volume and
latency are reduced (§ 2.1.2, pg. 122; Ans. 19). The Examiner found (Ans.
18), and we agree, that Jing teaches a filtering process wherein proxies
automatically translate to and from a compact subset of HTML based on
negotiated device capabilities (§ 2.2.3, p. 128). In other words, the
translation process depends on the device capabilities, and the protocols (i.e.,
what is translated) are customized based on the device capabilities (Ans. 18).
This is consistent with Appellants’ Specification which describes optimizing
an existing message format based on the device characteristics (Ans. 18,
Spec., ¶ [0075]).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Jing teaches
feature (i) of claim 1.
Appellants further argue that Jing’s section 2.1.2, contrary to the
Examiner’s finding that it teaches feature (ii) of claim 1, does not relate to a
mediator server, but rather relates to communications between a client side
intercept and a server side intercept, each of which is separately disposed
from a respective client and server (Br. 10).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. The feature (ii) of claim
1 requires “receiving said encoded message from said client at a mediator
Appeal 2010-010624
Application 10/303,805

7
server (20) disposed external to said client” (emphasis added). We agree
with the Examiner that the Server Side Intercept (i.e., mediator server) is
disposed external to the client (see Fig. 4, p. 123). Thus, we find no error
with the Examiner’s finding that Jing teaches feature (ii) of claim 1.
Appellants also argue that Jing’s section 2.1.2, contrary to Examiner’s
assertion that it teaches feature (iii), is related to communications in the
opposite direction (i.e., from a server intermediary to a client intermediary)
(Br. 10).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. Jing teaches that the
Server Side Intercept (SSI) “reconstitutes the HTML data stream and
forwards it to the designated CSI Web server (or proxy server)” (p. 123
(emphasis added in original), Ans. 20). As seen in Figure 4, the Web server
(or proxy server) is not at the client location (Fig. 4, p. 123, Ans. 20).
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that Jing
teaches feature (iii) of claim 1.
Appellants further argue with respect to claim 36 that the Examiner’s
rejection failed to show that the cited prior art teaches the limitation of
“responsively to said characteristics and said services, automatically
generating a mediator program for installation in a computing device
external to said client, said mediator program accepting input from said
client to said first protocol and being further adapted to reformulate said first
messages as second messages according to a second protocol” (Br. 13).
We do not agree. Jing teaches a mediator program residing on a
device external to a client that accepts input from the client to a first protocol
and being further adapted to reformulate the first messages as second
messages according to a second protocol (see SSI, p. 123, Ans. 21). Jing
Appeal 2010-010624
Application 10/303,805

8
further teaches optimizing applications based on the characteristics of a
client (§ 3.1, p. 129, Ans. 21). The Examiner relied on Taylor for teaching
automatically generating a mediator program (Fig. 2, ¶¶[0094]-[0097], Ans.
21). We note that Appellants did not file a Reply Brief disputing these
findings.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 36,
and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-3, 8, 9, 20, 30, 31, 38, 49,
53, 54, 59, 65, and 76. We note that Appellants’ arguments (Br. 11-17)
merely repeating the language of the claims and asserting without further
argument that the references do not teach the claimed features are not
considered separate arguments for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 4-7, 10, 11, 13, 15-19, 21, 22, 32-35, 37, 39, 44-48, 50-
51, 55-58, 60-61, 66, and 71-75, and 77-78.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Jing,
Taylor, and Chidambaran teaches the limitations of:
(i) automatically defining a first message format that is
optimized according to said characteristics and said service; …
(ii) receiving said encoded message from said client at a
mediator server (20) disposed external to said client; [and] …
(iii) executing said mediator program in said mediator server
(20) to re-encode said encoded message into a second message
format that is acceptable to said application server to define a
re-encoded message, wherein a size of said re-encoded message
exceeds a size of said encoded message; and
transmitting said re-encoded message to a provider of said
service

Appeal 2010-010624
Application 10/303,805

9
as recited in claim 1. (Emphasis added).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13, 15-22, 30-39, 44-
51, 53-61, 65, 66, and 71-78 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

rwk