Ex Parte Sakhare

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2016

12539055 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/539,055 08/11/2009
72058 7590 11/09/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kiran Sakhare
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.
58083-394854(B1066) 8542
EXAMINER
MAI,KEVINS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatrickstockton.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRAN SAKHARE
Appeal2016-002992
Application 12/539,055
Technology Center 2400
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, ERIC S. FRAHM, and LINZY T.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to a server setting caching
process. Spec 7: 10-11. Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having
computer readable code thereon, the medium comprising
instructions for:
in a development platform during development of an
application, identifying a requirement to access a remote server,
the requirement indicating that server information be accessible to
Appeal2016-002992
Application 12/539,055
the development platform regardless of an availability of at least
one server;
connecting to the at least one server;
obtaining caching settings from the at least one server, the
caching settings comprising information from the at least one
server;
updating a user interface of the development platform based
on the caching settings, the user interface configured to
dynamically display at least a portion of the caching settings to
assist development of the at least one application:
responsive to a user input, dynamically displaying the
caching settings within the updated user interface of the
development platform during development of the at least one
application; and
using the caching settings, verifying successful interaction
between the at least one application and the at least one server
during operation of the at least one application.
The Examiner rejects claims 1-14, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hopkins (US 2003/0233404 Al, published
December 18, 2003) and Jerrard-Dunne (US 2007/0016696 Al, published
January 18, 2007) and claims 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hopkins, Jerrard-Dunne, and Balasubramanian (US
2010/0050154 Al, published February 25, 2010).
2
Appeal2016-002992
Application 12/539,055
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Hopkins only discloses "the same local
inter/ ace that is used in the online session is also used in the ofjline
session" and that Jerrard-Dunne only discloses information that "is unrelated
to activity in the editor's user interface." App. Br. 6, 8. Hence, Appellant
argues the combination of Hopkins and Jerrard-Dunne fails to disclose or
suggest "updating a user interface," as recited in claim 1. We are not
persuaded by Appellant's argument for at least the reasons set forth by the
Examiner. Ans. 2--4.
For example, Hopkins discloses "a local interface that can
communicate with the remote server" through which a "user transmits
instructions ... through the underlying network [and] are ultimately
received at the remote server [during an online session]." Hopkins i-f 6.
Hopkins also discloses that "when the client is offline ... the client imports .
. . logic used to manipulate the data ... that is capable of being interpreted
and performed by the local interface." Hopkins ,-r 7. In other words, when
"online," the local interface of Hopkins relays instructions from the user to
the remote server but when "offline," the local interface is "updated" in
order to now interpret and perform functional logic and data itself (without
the remote server). Appellant does not explain sufficiently how the local
3
Appeal2016-002992
Application 12/539,055
interface of Hopkins is not "updated" when the function of local interface of
Hopkins is modified when the user is "offline" (as opposed to when the user
is "online").
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Hopkins and
Jerrard-Dunne because "the Final Office Action was obligated to provide a
rationale for the missing functionality, i.e., developing a software
application, but it did not" and that "Hopkins is entirely unrelated to
software development" and "Jerrard-Dunne provides no teachings regarding
how one might incorporate such functionality into a system like Hopkins."
App. Br. 9-10. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument for at least
the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 4--7.
As the Examiner indicates, Hopkins discloses updating a user
interface, displaying information within the updated user interface, and using
the information to "access[] and manipulat[ e] data residing on the remote
server" by "simulating an online session while the user is offline" (i.e.,
verify successful interaction between a local interface that is performing
computer operations and a server during operation of the computer
operations). Hopkins i-f 5. As the Examiner also indicates, Jerrard-Dunne
discloses that a computer operation known to those of ordinary skill in the
art and known to be performed on a computer system includes "creating,
editing, and emulating [an] ... application" or "provisioning a client
application." Jerrold-Dunne i-fi-12, 9. As the Examiner states, "[o]ne of
4
Appeal2016-002992
Application 12/539,055
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to use a
known technique to improve similar devices in the same way." Final Act. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the known process of updating
a (local) user interface and performing computer processes through the
updated interface for interaction with a remote server when online (as
disclosed by Hopkins) to include the known computer process of developing
an application, as disclosed by Jerrold-Dunne. Such a combination of
known features performing their known functions would have resulted in the
mere predictable result of using a (local) user interface to perform computer
processes with a remote server (Hopkins) in which the computer process
performed is the known computer process of developing an application.
Such a combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim 14 recites "building at least one content assist proposal." Claim
14 does not recite any additional features or characteristics of the "content
assist proposal." Appellant argues that Hopkins and Jerrard-Dunne disclose
"data and functional logic" but fail to disclose or suggest "content assist
proposals," as recited in claim 14. App. Br. 10-11. We are not persuaded
by Appellant's argument for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner.
Ans. 7-9.
5
Appeal2016-002992
Application 12/539,055
Appellant does not indicate that the Specification provides a definition
of the term "content assist proposals." We do not independently identify
such a definition in the Specification. We note, however, that the
Specification discloses one example of a "content assist proposal" that
contains "mappings ... created from server information." Spec. 10, Fig. 5.
The Specification discloses another example in which the "content assist
proposal" contains "a menu listing the available data ... sources on the
server" (Spec. 15) and "a menu of available component options from which
the user 108 may choose the correct component." Spec. 17. Hence, one of
skill in the art would have understood a "content assist proposal" to
encompass a data component or structure that may contain information
associated with a server (as disclosed as one example in the Specification).
As previously noted, Hopkins discloses that the client "imports at
least a subset of the data that resides at the remove server [to the local
interface]." i-f 7. In other words, after importing data associated with the
remote server, the local interface contains a data component that contains the
imported data that is associated with the remote server (i.e., the local
interface contains a "content assist proposal," as would have been
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Specification).
Appellant does not sufficiently explain why the data component containing
information associated with a server as disclosed by Hopkins does not teach
or suggest the data component containing information associated with a
server (i.e., a "content assist proposal") as recited in claim 14.
6
Appeal2016-002992
Application 12/539,055
Claims 15 and 19 each recite "displaying the caching settings
comprises displaying at least one of a content assist proposal or a code hint."
Appellant argues that Balasubramanian fails to disclose or suggest "code
hinting." App. Br. 12. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument for at
least the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 8-9. Appellant does not
indicate that the Specification provides a definition of the term "code
hinting." We do not independently identify such a definition in the
Specification. We note, however, that the Specification discloses an
example in which a user may access information using "code hinting,"
another example in which code hinting may contain "mappings," and
another example in which a user accesses information "using features
including ... code hinting." Spec. 7, 10, 11. We do not identify additional
disclosure in the Specification pertaining to "code hinting."
In view of the lack of a definition or explanation of the term "code
hinting," we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
broadly but reasonably understood the term "code hinting" in light of the
Specification and based on a plain and customary understanding to include a
suggestion (or "hint") for use in providing information for a computer. The
Examiner states that Balasubramanian discloses "suggestions are offered to
the application developer to correct the semantic error." Ans. 9. In other
words, Balasubramanian discloses a suggestion for use in a computer (or
"code hint"). Appellant does not adequately explain why the "code hint"
7
Appeal2016-002992
Application 12/539,055
disclosed by Balasubramanian does not teach or suggest the "code hint"
recited in claims 15 and 19.
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Hopkins with that
of Balasubramanian because such a combination "would require entirely
changing the mode of operation of Hopkins CRM system." App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant for at least the reasons set forth by the
Examiner. Final Act. 20. For example, Appellant does not sufficiently
explain how modifying a system for providing data and functional logic
from a remote server to a local interface for use in an offline session
(Hopkins) by including a "code hint" in the data and functional logic that is
provided to the local interface (Balasubramanian) would result in "entirely
changing the mode of operation of the Hopkins CRM system." See App. Br.
13. Indeed, the combination of the known system of providing information
from a remote server to a local interface for use in a computer session with
the known feature that information for use in a computer session includes
"code hints" would have resulted in the mere predictable result of providing
information from a remote server to a local interface for use in a computer
session. Such an expected result would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'! Co., 550 U.S. at 416.
Appellant does not provide additional arguments in support of the
other claims under appeal. In view of the foregoing, the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-20.
8
Appeal2016-002992
Application 12/539,055
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14, 16-18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hopkins and Jerrard-Dunne
and claims 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hopkins, Jerrard-Dunne, and Balasubramanian.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9