Joshua A. Alger et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 29, 2019

14564447 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/564,447 12/09/2014 Joshua A. Alger RSW920140158US1 (825) 3664 46320 7590 07/29/2019 Shutts & Bowen LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 525 Okeechobee Blvd # 1100 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2019 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): PMetlika@shutts.com aschneider@shutts.com docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOSHUA A. ALGER, CURTISS J. HOWARD, and TODD E. KAPLINGER ____________ Appeal 2018-007805 Application 14/564,447 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–18. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies International Business Machines Corporation, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 13, 2018, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed July 18, 2018, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 18, 2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed October 13, 2017, “Final Act.”), and Appeal 2018-007805 Application 14/564,447 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to systems and methods for hybrid Web Storage performing mixed utilization of a localStorage object and remote storage. See Abstract. INVENTION Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A method for hybrid Web Storage performing mixed utilization of a localStorage object and remote storage, the method comprising: receiving a cache request in a key usage engine of a mobile device by an application executing in the mobile device; determining in the key usage engine based upon at least detected network connectivity whether to process the cache request in a hypertext markup language (HTML) version 5 localStorage object of the mobile device, or to process the cache request in remote storage external from the mobile device over a computer communications network, the key usage engine determining to process the cache request in an HTML version 5 localStorage object of the mobile device on condition that the cache request is either a request for a local object or when no network connectivity is detected, but otherwise the key usage engine determining to process the cache request in remote storage on condition that both the cache request is a request for a remotely stored object and when network connectivity is detected; and, processing the cache request in the loca1Storage object of the mobile device responsive to a determination by the key the Specification (filed December 9, 2014, “Spec.”) for their respective details. Appeal 2018-007805 Application 14/564,447 3 usage engine to process the cache request locally, but otherwise processing the cache request in the remote storage. References and Rejections3 Rodriguez US 2011/0143811 A1 June 16, 2011 Burckart et al. US 2013/0346542 A1 Dec. 26, 2013 Antipa US 2015/0106426 A1 Apr. 16, 2015 The Claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1–3, 7–9, and 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez and Burckart. Final Act. 4–10. 2. Claims 4–6, 10–12, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez, Burckart, and Antipa. Final Act. 11–12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–18 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’ arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 6–9. PRINCIPLES OF LAW. The Examiner finds that whereas: the claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during 3 The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2018-007805 Application 14/564,447 4 examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. Ans. 3 (citing In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, F.3d 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)); see also Final Act. 3. Contrary to the Examiner: During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. MPEP § 2111.4 Am. Acad. of Sci. (cited by the Examiner) states BRI is determined “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). MPEP § 2111. 4 MPEP, Ninth Edition, Revision 08.2017, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html. Appeal 2018-007805 Application 14/564,447 5 CLAIMS 1–18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER RODRIGUEZ, BURCKART, AND ANTIPA. Appellants argue all claims as a group over the limitations of independent Claims 1. See App. Br. 6–9. Therefore, we decide the appeal on the basis of representative Claim 1, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “on condition that the cache request is either a request for a local object or when no network connectivity is detected.” Independent Claims 7 and 13 contain commensurate recitations. Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “on condition that the cache request is either a request for a local object or when no network connectivity is detected.” The Final Action maps this limitation to the disclosure at paragraph 27 of Rodriguez. Final Act. 3. We find no disclosure of a “cache request” in the cited portion of Rodriguez. The Answer variously finds Rodriguez supplies the required teaching in either paragraphs 106, 149, 190, 193, 223, or 224. Ans. 4. Similarly, we find no disclosure of a “cache request” in these further cited portions of Rodriguez. Because we find the cited art fails to teach at least one claimed limitation, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. REVERSED