JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 4, 20212021004272 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 16/276,095 02/14/2019 Jack Stephen MORAN P56599 5770 157693 7590 08/04/2021 JPMorgan Chase / Greenblum & Bernstein 1950 Roland Clarke Place Reston, VA 20191 EXAMINER MCBETH, WILLIAM C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/04/2021 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): gbpatent@gbpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JACK STEPHEN MORAN ____________________ Appeal 2021-004272 Application 16/276,095 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3 through 14, and 16 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2021-004272 Application 16/276,095 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for notifying a user of an operational state of a web application. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for notifying a user of an operational state of a web application, the method comprising: obtaining, from the web application, a first value that relates to a data caching state, a second value that relates to an error state, and a third value that relates to a data retrieval state; determining, based on the obtained first value, the obtained second value, and the obtained third value, the operational state of the web application; and displaying, on a screen of a user device, information that relates to the determined operational state, wherein an execution of the web application is initiated by an input of a web page Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address received from the user, wherein the method is implemented in a React JavaScript framework by using a set of computer-readable instructions that is compatible with any React JavaScript application. REJECTION2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3 through 14, and 16 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee (US 2016/0180567 A1; published June 23, 2016), Balasubramanian (US 2008/0046100 A1; published Feb. 21, 2008), Tulchinsky (US 2015/0195340 A1; published July 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 24 2021 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed June 28, 2021 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed September 1, 2020 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 13, 2021 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2021-004272 Application 16/276,095 3 9, 2015) and Khatipov et al. (“Hikester - the event management application,” 2018 32nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and applications Workshops (WAINA) 462–468, 2018). Ans. 3–13.3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 14, and 16 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues: [I]n Khatipov, the disclosure relates solely to implementing the “Web part of Hikester . . . as a single page application” (see Khatipov, section 3.3.2, page 464). In this regard, Appellant respectfully submits that Khatipov provides no disclosure whatsoever in relation to “using a set of computer-readable instructions that is compatible with any React JavaScript application.” Appeal Br. 11–12. 3 We note that Appellant disputes whether Khatipov was included in the Final Rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 7–8. Appellant, in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, responded to the Examiner’s rejection by addressing Khatipov, thus showing that Appellant was aware that Khatipov is being applied to claim 1. Regardless, the Examiner has clearly identified on pages 3 through 17 of the Answer that Khatipov is being applied to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and thus we consider the rejection of claim 1 before us to include Khatipov. We additionally note that the issue of whether or not this is a new rejection is a petitionable (and not an appealable) issue which we do not consider. See In re Schneider, 481 F.2d 1350, 1356–57 (CCPA 1973) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1002.02(c), item 6, § 1207.03(a) (II), and § 1207.03(b). Appeal 2021-004272 Application 16/276,095 4 The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, finding that “Khatipov discloses implementing ‘Hikester’ as a single page web application using the React JavaScript (“ReactJS”) framework.” Ans. 14 (emphasis omitted). Further, the Examiner identifies that the React JavaScript discussed in Khatipov, provides for hooks which are necessarily compatible with all applications implemented using JavaScript. Ans. 14. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Claim 1 recites the method is implemented “in a React JavaScript framework by using a set of computer-readable instructions that is compatible with any React JavaScript application.” Thus, claim 1 recites that method is implemented with a set of instructions, and that the instructions are compatible with any React JavaScript application. The Examiner’s analysis focuses on the “set of computer-readable instructions” as the instruction set used in implementing the method (i.e., pool of available instructions), and not the specific instructions used to implement the method (i.e. the lines of code in the program). When interpreted in this manner, we concur with the Examiner’s findings that Khatipov teaches using React JavaScript, and that code elements such as the hooks in React JavaScript are compatible with all applications implemented in React JavaScript. Because Appellant is arguing is that Khatipov does not teach the “set of computer-readable instructions” (i.e. the lines of code containing more than one instruction), but rather a single page web application; we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. We consider a single page web application to contain a set of instructions (i.e. the lines of code containing more than one instruction), and as such teach the claim limitation (see also Appellant’s Specification in paragraph 72 cited as support for “set Appeal 2021-004272 Application 16/276,095 5 of computer-readable instructions” limitation).4 As such, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Lee, Balasubramanian, Tulchinsky, and Khatipov using a set of computer-readable instructions as recited in claim 1. Appellant additionally argues, with respect to claim 1, that even if Khatipov is combined with Lee, Balasubramanian, and Tulchinsky, the method of claim 1 would not be workable with respect to any React JavaScript application, because each of Lee, Balasubramanian, and Tulchinsky discloses application- specific methodologies for providing application status information. In this aspect, Appellant respectfully submits that merely combining these references with Khatipov would not transform any such application-specific methodology so that it would be compatible with any React JavaScript application. Appeal Br. 12 (underlining omitted). The Examiner finds that the skilled artisan would use Khatipov’s teachings with the other references as “One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine implementing the software application using the ReactJS framework to display changes to the user interface of the software application without reloading the web page.” Ans. 7 (citing Khatipov 3.3.2). Further, in response to Appellant’s argument in the Brief, the Examiner states: Modifying the combination of Lee, Balasubramanian and Tulchinsky to implement the web application of Lee using the React JavaScript framework as taught by Khatipov necessarily transforms the methodology to be compatible with any React 4 We additionally note that Khatipov teaches that one of the advantages of the system is that it works on many platforms and devices, which supports a finding that the instructions in the single page web application can be used with any React JavaScript application. Khatipov 3.1. Appeal 2021-004272 Application 16/276,095 6 JavaScript application as the state model and functionality for accessing the state model are part of the React JavaScript framework. Ans. 15 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in combining Khatipov’s teachings with the other references. The test set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR is whether the Examiner has proffered a reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, the Examiner has shown that Khatipov teaches using a React JavaScript framework that is compatible with any React JavaScript application and cited evidence to support this conclusion. We consider the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references to be a reasoned rationale and we are not persuaded Appellant’s unsupported assertion that the references are not compatible. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. With respect to claims 3 through 14 and 16 through 20, Appellant argues the rejection of these claims is in error for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 13–14. As discussed above, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 through 14 and 16 through 20 for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal 2021-004272 Application 16/276,095 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–14, 16– 20 103 Lee, Balasubramanian, Tulchinsky, Khatipov 1, 3–14, 16– 20 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation