Ex Parte Falk et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 31, 2019

14072106 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/072,106 11/05/2013 Alexander Falk 133139 7590 02/04/2019 Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C. One Citizens Plaza 8th floor Providence, RI 02903 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. 406617-505001US 1033 EXAMINER LOUIE, JUE WANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2193 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/04/2019 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): IPDocketing@apslaw.com aps@blackhillsip.com APS.IPSS@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEXANDER FALK and VLADISLA VGA VRIELOV1 Appeal2018-006513 Application 14/072, 106 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-5, 7-27, 29, and 34, which are all the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Altova GmbH (hereinafter "Appellant"). Br. 2. 2 Claims 6 and 28 have been canceled, and claims 30-33 have been withdrawn. Appeal2018-006513 Application 14/072, 106 Disclosed Invention Appellant's disclosed invention relates to mobile application development and deployment. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: in a server residing in a network, receiving an application description file from a design system communicatively linked to the server, the application description file capable of targeting multiple application platforms and representing a workflow of an application for user equipment communicatively linked to the server; generating from the received application description file an application envelope comprising at least a subset of the application description file; sending the application envelope to a client application residing in the user equipment, the client application interpreting contents of the application envelope; and utilizing a shared execution model for the workflow, where some steps of the program logic are executed by the client application in the user equipment, whereas other steps are executed by the server, as needed. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 15, 18-22, 24, 25, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chene (US 2006/0161646 Al; Jul. 20, 2006) and Buzsaki (US 5,987,422; Nov. 16, 1999). Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Nori (US 2012/0324069 Al; Dec. 20, 2012). 2 Appeal2018-006513 Application 14/072, 106 Claims 4, 5, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Chiluvuri (US 8,392,877; Mar. 5, 2013). Claims 12, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Wilkes (US 2012/0023116 Al; Jan. 26, 2012). Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Abjanic (US 2009/0216900 Al; Aug. 27, 2009). Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Hirsch (US 8,261,231 B 1; Sep. 4, 2012). Claims 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Heller (US 2013/0253904 Al; Sep. 26, 2013). Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chene, Buzsaki, and Kito (US 5,946,464; Aug. 31, 1999). ANALYSIS Appellant presents several arguments with respect to representative independent claim 1. See Br. 15-22. Specifically, Appellant contends that each of Chene' s mobile-forms application-definition files only targets a single application platform, in contrast to claim 1, which recites "the application description file capable of targeting multiple application platforms." Br. 15-16. Appellant also contends Chene does not teach "generating from the received application description file an application 3 Appeal2018-006513 Application 14/072, 106 envelope comprising at least a subset of the application description file," as recited in claim 1. Br. 17-18. Appellant further contends "there is no client application residing in any mobile device in Chene," contrary to claim 1, which recites "sending the application envelope to a client application residing in the user equipment." Br. 18-19. Finally, Appellant contends the combination of Buzsaki with Chene fails to teach the "shared execution model" recited in claim 1. Br. 19-22. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Chene describes a "content management system for mobile forms applications [that] enables organizations to define and deploy mobile applications, forms, and business process workflow to mobile users across an enterprise." Chene, ,r 17. The system includes a mobile-forms application designer 34, a policy-based mobile content engine 22, and a mobile-forms application client 18. Chene, ,r 21. In an embodiment, "a process for creating a mobile forms application, transmitting the mobile forms application, and receiving data via the mobile forms application" begins when a user utilizes the mobile-forms application designer 34 to define a mobile-forms application-definition file 14. Chene, ,r 57. "The mobile-forms application-definition file 14 defines the data model, form navigation, form validation, behavior, look and feel for the form application, and the various processing states that a form document will transition through." Id. The mobile-forms application-definition file 14 is transferred to the policy-based mobile content engine 22, which "generates client installation packages for installing the mobile form application onto the user devices." Chene, ,r,r 59-60. Then, "[t]he mobile forms application created by the mobile-forms application designer 34, is deployed to the user devices 4 Appeal2018-006513 Application 14/072, 106 ... by the policy-based mobile content engine 22." Chene, ,r 61. "The mobile-forms application client 18 (FIG. 1) is available on a wide variety of user devices (PC, Laptop, Tablet, PDA, Blackberry, Smartphone, Browser- based thin-client, etc.) that allows end-users to interact with application data and content." Chene, ,r 62. We conclude Chene teaches "in a server residing in a network, receiving an application description file from a design system communicatively linked to the server, the application description file capable of targeting multiple application platforms," as recited in claim 1. Namely, Chene's policy-based mobile content engine 22 (the claimed "server") receives a mobile-forms application-definition file 14 ( the claimed "application description file") from a mobile-forms application designer 34 (the claimed "design system"). See Chene, ,r,r 57-59; Figs. 3, 4. The mobile-forms application-definition file 14 is intended for use in deploying a mobile-forms application to devices on which the "mobile-forms application client 18 includes a plurality of rendering engines targeted for each Operating System (OS) enabled mobile device or browser enabled device that can be used as a thick and thin client." Chene, ,r 24. That is, Chene's mobile-forms application client 18 supports mobile-forms application deployment on the operating systems of a number of different devices, and thus Chene's mobile-forms application-definition file 14 is "capable of targeting multiple application platforms," as recited in claim 1. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Chene's mobile- forms application-definition file 14 is "only capable of targeting one application platform" because in Chene "there are specific mobile-forms application clients for specific user devices." Br. 16. As mentioned above, 5 Appeal2018-006513 Application 14/072, 106 Chene discloses the mobile-forms application client 18 has "a plurality of rendering engines targeted for each Operating System (OS) enabled mobile device" (Chene, ,r 24), which shows that Chene's mobile-forms application- definition file 14 can target multiple application platforms. We also conclude Chene teaches "generating from the received application description file an application envelope comprising at least a subset of the application description file," as recited in claim 1. We note Appellant has not pointed to any express definition of "application envelope" in the Specification. Appellant does, however, provide the following definition in the Appeal Brief: "To those of ordinary skill in the art, an envelope is commonly known as a wrapper and a wrapper generally refers to data that precedes or frames the main data or a program that sets up another program so that it can run successfully." Br. 17-18. Even taking Appellant's interpretation as correct, and also noting that claim 1 requires the "application envelope" include "at least a subset of the application description file," we conclude Chene's description of "client installation packages for installing the mobile form application onto the user devices" (Chene, ,r 60) teaches the claimed "application envelope." One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Chene' s installation package includes some data necessary for the installation, in addition to the data of the mobile-forms application itself. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that "at least a subset of' Chene's mobile- forms application-definition file 14 is included in the installation package because the application-definition file 14 defines the "look and feel for the form application," and such information is necessary for Chene's mobile- forms application client 18 to render the mobile-forms application. See 6 Appeal2018-006513 Application 14/072, 106 Chene, ,r,r 24, 57. Importantly, Appellant has not specifically explained why Chene' s disclosure of installation packages-relied upon by the Examiner (Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 3}--fails to teach the claimed "application envelope." See Br. 17-18. We further conclude Chene teaches "sending the application envelope to a client application residing in the user equipment," as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Chene' s mobile-forms application client 18 meets the limitation of a "client application residing in the user equipment." See Chene, ,r 62. Appellant provides no persuasive explanation why Chene's mobile-forms application client 18 fails to teach the claimed "client application." See Br. 18-19. Finally, we conclude the combination of Chene and Buzsaki teaches "utilizing a shared execution model for the workflow, where some steps of the program logic are executed by the client application in the user equipment, whereas other steps are executed by the server, as needed," as recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds Chene describes some steps in the workflow of the mobile-forms application may be executed by the mobile- forms application client 18, while some steps may be executed by the policy- based mobile content engine 22. See Ans. 7-8; Final Act. 4. In particular, Chene discloses "the mobile-forms application client 18 is also able to display, update, capture and attach a wide variety of multi-media content to the form data" and the policy-based mobile content engine 22 "guide[ s] each instance of a mobile form through the business workflow process, including but not limited to, routing the form to different users and sending out notifications as the data fields of the mobile form are updated and actions are taken." Chene, ,r,r 25, 29. Appellant does not persuasively explain why 7 Appeal2018-006513 Application 14/072, 106 these operations of Chene' s mobile-forms application client 18 and policy- based content engine 22 fail to teach "where some steps of the program logic are executed by the client application in the user equipment, whereas other steps are executed by the server, as needed," as recited in claim 1. See Br. 19-22. Moreover, the Examiner also concludes Buzsaki teaches the claimed "shared execution model for the workflow" by describing a workflow in which a server receives input from a client application and then uses the input. Ans. 8-9; Final Act. 4. To wit, Buzsaki discloses "[ e ]xecution of a worliflow is initiated when the requestor submits input to the client application program 207 identifying a workflow. The client application program 207 ... communicates the request to execute a workflow to the client login process 216 . ... [T]he client login process 216 executes workflow engine program code to implement workflow engine 221 .... " Buzsaki, col. 5, 11. 31--46 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed "shared execution model for the workflow" does not preclude a client application input step from being among the executed steps (see Ans. 9). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Buzsaki teaches a "shared execution model for the workflow." We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-27, 29, and 34 not specifically argued separately. 8 Appeal2018-006513 Application 14/072, 106 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-27, 29, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-27, 29, and 34. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 9