Ex Parte Demant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 2016

12841856 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/841,856 07/22/2010 56056 7590 05/03/2016 BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP C/O CPA Global P.O. BOX 52050 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hilmar Demant 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. 0046-014001/2010P00124US 2894 EXAMINER NANO, SARGON N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2016 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): uspto@brakehughes.com docketing@cpaglobal.com lisa@brakehughes.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HILMAR DEMANT, SEBASTIAN DROLL, JOACHIM FITZER, IOANNIS GRAMMATIKAKIS, JAN HEILER, WERGEN SATTLER, FRANK SCHERTEL, MARKUS VIOL, and THORSTEN WEBER Appeal2014-007505 Application 12/841,856 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-13 and 21-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2014-007505 Application 12/841,856 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application "relates to component execution at a network client." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer system, the computer system comprising: a client database manager configured to cause a memory of a client device on a client side of a network to store a first component, a second component, and a relationship value representing a dependent relationship between the first component and the second component, the dependent relationship being a processing dependency such that at least some portion of processing of the first component is dependent on the processing of the second component; and a client processing module configured to cause a processor to receive, after the storing, a request to process the first component at the client device, the client database manager configured to send to a server side of the network, in response to the request to process the first component, a request for an update of at least one of the first component or the second component, the client processing module configured to cause the processor to process at the client device, in response to the request to process the first component and before receiving a response to the request for the update from the server side of the network, at least a portion of the first component and at least a portion of the second component based on the relationship value. App. Br. 32. REJECTION Claims 1-13 and 21-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart (US 2010/0169875 Al; published July 1, 2010) and !chino (US 2009/0106187 Al; published Apr. 23, 2009). Final Act. 2- 13. 2 Appeal2014-007505 Application 12/841,856 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments and agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. In particular, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not demonstrated the combination of Stewart and !chino teaches or suggests the following limitation recited in claim 1 : the client processing module configured to cause the processor to process at the client device, in response to the request to process the first component and before receiving a response to the request for the update from the server side of the network, at least a portion of the first component and at least a portion of the second component based on the relationship value. App. Br. 32 (emphasis added). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner maps the "first component" to Stewart's first file, the "second component" to Stewart's second file, and the "relationship value" to Stewart's update package, which includes the difference between Stewart's first and second files. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 14. To reject the disputed limitation, the Examiner cites portions of Stewart that describe delivering the requested update package to the wireless communication device's update component, which then generates a copy of the second file and installs that file on the wireless communication device to replace the first file. See Final Act. 3 (citing Stewart i-fi-16-10). Appellants contend the cited portions of Stewart teach processing the first file "in response to receiving the upgrade package," not "before receiving a response to the request for the update from the server side of the network" as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 24. We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Stewart describe processing the first file in response to receiving the requested upgrade package. See Stewart i-fi-16-10. 3 Appeal2014-007505 Application 12/841,856 Thus, as Appellants contend, the cited passages of Stewart do not teach or suggest "to process ... before receiving a response to the request for the update ... at least a portion of the first component" as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 24. Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown that Stewart teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. Nor has the Examiner shown that !chino cures this deficiency of Stewart. For these reasons, we reverse the rejections of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 21 and 25, each of which recite a similar limitation, and dependent claims 2-13, 22- 24, 26, and 27. See App. Br. 32-38. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1-13 and 21-27. REVERSED 4