Ex Parte Patel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2014

11834315 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte PARITOSH D. PATEL and MARC WHITE1
__________

Appeal 2012-003579
Application 11/834,315
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and MELANIE L.
McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to machine
readable instructions, a computer program product, and a method for
launching applications. The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-20 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 3), and are set forth
in the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (id. at 12-17). Claims 1 and 12
are illustrative and read as follows:

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines, Inc. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2012-003579
Application 11/834,315

2
1. A set of machine readable instructions stored in a machine
readable medium, said set of machine readable instructions comprising;
a launching engine configured to automatically launch a Web site and
load an electronic document responsive to a launching event for the
electronic document, wherein said launching engine utilizes associations
based upon file extensions to determine a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
of the Web site.
12. A method for launching applications comprising:
detecting a user selection of an electronic document having a file
extension;
ascertaining an association type for the electronic document by
looking up the file extension in a table that indexes file extensions against
local applications and different Web applications;
determining from the file extension and entries of the table that a Web
application that is one of the different Web applications is associated with
the electronic document, said Web application having a corresponding
remote Web site;
instantiating a browser;
directing the browser to the remote Web site; and
the remote Web site loading the electronic document into the Web
application, wherein the steps of claim 12 are automatically performed by a
machine in accordance with a set of programmatic instructions stored in a
machine readable medium.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Bethlehem et al. (US 2006/0168136 A1, July 27, 2006) (Ans. 4).
ANALYSIS
With regard to claim 1, Appellants argue that “none of the cited
sections of Bethlehem indicate launching a Web site responsive to a launch
event for a document” (App. Br. 7). We are not persuaded.
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 5), Bethlehem teaches:
Referring to FIG. 21, when a user at client 4 initiates the
embodiment, on the display associated with client 4,
screen 2100 is generated by software operating on client 4.
Appeal 2012-003579
Application 11/834,315

3
Further, when the user authenticates onto server 6, he can view
files/data stored in directories associated with server 6 as well
as local files as provided in window 2102. The server files and
data may be dynamically integrated and created on the client
interface and may be accessed using the client. In such an
embodiment, the user may utilize web browsing software (such
as Explorer™) on the client to access files/data. Entries 2104
provide individual icon and text information relating to
files/data associated with client 4. For example a Microsoft
Word document™ entitled “doc1” is listed [a]s shown, with the
title of the document and its associated icon 2106A. In client
interface 2100, icon 2110 is showing a file located on client 4
which also uses the Word application. As is typical with client
interfaces, activation of a mouse click when the mouse pointer
(not shown) is upon icon 2110 will launch the associated
application and open the file in the application.
(Bethlehem ¶ 69 (emphasis added).) Bethlehem Fig. 21 also depicts
icons 2112A and 2110B, the location of their associated application/service
residing on server 6 rather than on client 4 (id. at ¶ 70). In addition,
Bethlehem discloses that “an aspect of the embodiment allows client 4 to
access files, applications and services (such as web services) from server 6
as if the files, applications and services were stored locally on client 4” (id.
at ¶ 99). Thus, although Bethlehem specifically exemplifies “activation of a
mouse click . . . will launch the associated application and open the file in
the application” when the mouse pointer is upon an icon, icon 2110, whose
associated application, Microsoft Word, appears to be on client 4 (id. at
¶¶ 69-70 & Fig. 21), we agree with the Examiner that Bethlehem also
“teaches automatically launching an associated server/web-based
application and opening a file/document in the web application in
response to an activated icon” of the file/document (Ans. 15).
Appeal 2012-003579
Application 11/834,315

4
Appellants additionally argue that Bethlehem does not teach “that a
URL for a Web site is associated with a file extension” (App. Br. 7). We are
not persuaded.
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 5), Bethlehem discloses:
The Java ImageIcon objects are used to build hash table
step 1508 on client 4. The hash table contains the relationships
between the file extension (i.e. “.txt”) and the actual image.
The client interface on client 4 generates icon files on the client
with images stored in the hash table. The embodiment may be
set by default to use local or server applications first. . . . If the
embodiment uses server applications first, the server icons in
client 4 memory are compared to the Iconlib.dll of local client 4
retrieved applications and their associated extensions and are
then used to accurately populate the client interface on the
client 4. The user profile data contains graphics for the icons,
file type extensions, and the path to access and execute the
application, service or associated file/data.
(Bethlehem ¶ 114 (emphasis added).) In addition, Bethlehem discloses that
“methods will send a get web application URL string to the server 6” (id. at
¶ 131). Although Bethlehem’s paragraph 131 may not specifically discuss
accessing a web-based application by clicking on an electronic document
associated with the application, we agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that the use of a URL as a path to
access and execute a web-based application would be equally applicable to
the embodiment described in Bethlehem paragraph 69 in which a web-based
application is accessed by clicking on an electronic document associated
with the application. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Bethlehem
teaches that a path, specifically a URL, is associated with a file extension
(Ans. 15-16).
Appeal 2012-003579
Application 11/834,315

5
With regard to claim 12, Appellants argue that the “Rejection cites
paras. 0099 and 0100 as showing the claimed ascertaining an association in a
table that indexes file extensions against local and different Web
applications,” but that “the cited sections of Bethlehem do not teach the
claimed limitations” (App. Br. 8). We are not persuaded.
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 9), Bethlehem discloses that “the user
profile obtains and stores an inventory of both local and server based
application[s], their extensions and their associated icons” (Bethlehem
¶ 100). In addition, when viewed in context with Bethlehem’s
paragraphs 69 and 114 discussed above, which are relied upon by the
Examiner to disclose the detecting step of claim 12 (Ans. 9 & 16-17), we
agree with the Examiner that Bethlehem discloses the ascertaining step of
claim 12.
With regard to claim 16, Appellants argue that Bethlehem does not
teach “a launching event initiated by user selection of a document having a
file extension which is used to index to [a] Web site in a table, which is
loaded responsive to the launching event, and in which the document is
loaded” (App. Br. 9). We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons
discussed above.
Appellants separately traverse the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3,
5, 11, 13, and 15 (id. at 9-10). We are not persuaded by these arguments
substantially for the reasons indicated by the Examiner (Ans. 17-19).
However, we include the following additional comments.
With regard to claim 5, Bethlehem discloses:
[F]ile name extensions on client 4 can be registered in a registry
(such as a Windows registry) as if associated applications have
Appeal 2012-003579
Application 11/834,315

6
been installed on client 4. As registered item[s] typically only
include an icon path of the extension icon file, execution of the
item may typically be processed by the shell extension
IShellExecuteHook COM component. . . . At step 1522 the
shell extension uses icons passed from server 6 to give icons to
file patterns which may or may not have local icons at client 4
and may override icons for applications that have [a] local icon,
when a client selects a “server first” for application execution.
For example, if Microsoft Excel is installed on local client 4
and is also available from the server 6 as a hosted application,
the embodiment may override using the icons on client 4 to use
the Excel application icon on server 6.
(Bethlehem ¶ 116.) We agree that this teaching, together with the
disclosures of Bethlehem paragraphs 69 and 114 discussed above, teach that,
“in absence of utilizing the extension in at least one association table, the
launching engine would not be able to determine whether the locally
executing application is to be instantiated responsive to the launching event
or whether the Web site is to be launched and loaded with the electronic
document,” as recited in claim 5.
With regard to claim 11, the Examiner relies on Bethlehem’s user
profile data interface to be the claimed web application launcher helper
program (Ans. 18). Appellants have not adequately explained why this
position is incorrect.
With regard to claim 15, the Examiner finds that “Bethlehem teaches
the configuration management user interface . . . that allows a user to
reconfigure the settings” (citing Bethlehem Figs. 3-4 & 10-14 &
paragraphs 74-80 & 100-107) (Ans. 19). Bethlehem also discloses that one
the selectable preferences is whether “to search for either local or server
applications first” (Bethlehem ¶ 100). In addition, Bethlehem discloses the
Appeal 2012-003579
Application 11/834,315

7
use of hash tables (id. at ¶ 114). Thus, we conclude that Appellants have not
adequately explained why Bethlehem fails to disclose “receiving user input
to change a configuration setting in the table for the file extension from the
Web application to a local application” and “applying the user input to the
configuration setting and responsively updating the table,” such that a local
application opens the electronic document, as recited in claim 15.
Appellants also separately traverse the rejection of dependent claim 4
(App. Br. 9). The Examiner relies on Bethlehem Figure 21 and
paragraph 69 to teach the additional feature recited in this claim (Ans. 6 &
17). Although, as indicated above, we agree with the Examiner that
Bethlehem discloses that “a user selection of the electronic document
comprises clicking a graphical representation of the electronic document
when a visual pointer references the graphical representation,” as recited in
claim 3 (see Bethlehem ¶ 69 (“activation of a mouse click when the mouse
pointer . . . is upon icon 2110 will launch the associated application and open
the file in the application”), we conclude that the Examiner has not set forth
a prima facie case that Bethlehem teaches that “a user selection of the
electronic document comprises selecting at least one keyboard key when a
graphical representation of the electronic document has focus within a
graphical user interface,” as recited in claim 4.
CONCLUSION
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Bethlehem
anticipates claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, 15, and 16. We therefore affirm the
anticipation rejection of these claims. Claims 6-10, 14, and 17-20 are not
Appeal 2012-003579
Application 11/834,315

8
separately argued and therefore fall with representative claims 1, 12, and 16.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
However, the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that
Bethlehem anticipates claim 4. We therefore reverse the anticipation
rejection of claim 4.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc