Ex Parte Ayres et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2013

11269238 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MALCOLM DAVID AYRES, DAVID JAMES CURRIE,
MATHEW KELVIN VAUGHTON, and GRAHAM DEREK WALLIS
____________

Appeal 2010-011640
Application 11/269,238
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 21-23, and 29-37. Claims 8, 10-20, and 24-28
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-011640
Application 11/269,238

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to the connection of
an application to a resource manager selected from a plurality of resource
managers. Spec. 1, ll. 6-7.1 The subject matter on appeal involves
determining which resource manager of a plurality of resource managers an
application may be connected to, given a connection request. Spec.,
Abstract. Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in illustrative
independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief:2
1. A computer implemented method for determining
at least one resource manager of a plurality of resource managers
an application may be connected to, given a connection request,
the method comprising:
receiving a connection request from the application, which
is being executed by a hardware computer system, wherein the
connection request specifies a connection scope, and wherein the
connection scope specifies a desired location of a suitable
resource manager relative to a location of the application for the
application to connect to;
determining the location of the application;
determining one or more resource managers that satisfy,
within the desired location, the received connection request; and
informing a connection requester of the one or more
resource managers that satisfy the received connection request,
wherein the one or more resource managers comprise the at least
one resource manager.

1 References to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) are directed to the
specification filed on November 8, 2005.
2 References to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) are directed to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on April 19, 2010.
Appeal 2010-011640
Application 11/269,238

3

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following reference at pages 3 to 11 of the Answer:3
Nardin US 5,317,562 May 31, 1994
Kanerva US 2002/0128004 A1 Sept. 12, 2002
The Examiner provides the following grounds of rejections, of which
Appellants seek review:
(1) Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 21-23, 29-31, and 33-37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kanerva (Ans. 3-10); and
(2) Claims 2 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kanerva in view of Nardin (Ans. 10-11).
ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3-7, 9, 21-23, 29-31, and 33-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kanerva, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether Kanerva
discloses an “application,” as recited in independent claims 1, 21, and 31,
and dependent claims 3 and 33.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments as highlighted below.

3 References to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) are directed to the
Answer mailed on May 28, 2010.
Appeal 2010-011640
Application 11/269,238

4

A. Rejection of Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 21-23, 29-31, 33-37 Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as Being Anticipated by Kanerva
Independent Claims 1, 21, and 31
Independent claim 1 recites the step of “receiving a connection
request from the application, which is being executed by a hardware
computer system.” Independent claim 21 recites “specifying, by the
application that is being executed by a hardware computer system, a
connection request.” And independent claim 31 recites a “computer usable
program code for receiving a connection request from the application, which
is being executed by a hardware computer system.” The Examiner finds that
Kanerva discloses the above limitations by pointing to paragraph 8 in
Kanerva, which describes a first (or mobile) station that requests a
connection with other mobile stations. Ans. 4 and 7.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding is in error because the
“first station” in Kanerva is hardware. Br. 11. And “[h]ardware cannot be
anything that is within an operating system.” Id. (emphasis omitted). In
Appellants’ view, the recited “application” is a process, which is a context
within an operating system. Id. Therefore, Kanerva does not teach the
“application,” as recited by the claims. Id.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ argument by asserting that
Kanerva’s mobile station inherently includes an application. Ans. 11. We
concur with the Examiner’s finding. First, as correctly noted by the
Examiner, Kanerva discloses that as an alternative to the register, a
processor may be provided. Kanerva ¶ [0012]; see Ans. 4, 11. That
processor may calculate and/or obtain location information. Id. Kanerva
further teaches that the register may be internal to the mobile stations.
Appeal 2010-011640
Application 11/269,238

5

Kanerva ¶ [0038]. Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that the Kanerva
mobile stations are processor–based systems is reasonable.
The Examiner’s finding is further confirmed by the example disclosed
in Kanerva of a mobile station having a menu of various options for
requesting a connection with the nearest mobile station. Kanerva ¶ [0041].
Such disclosure supports the Examiner’s assertion that the Kanerva mobile
stations inherently include applications. Ans. 11 (citing also US 5,915,225
as evidence that mobile stations communicating with other stations must
have an application to execute the communication function). The
Examiner’s inherency finding remains unrebutted as Appellants did not file
a reply brief.
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in finding Kanerva discloses
the claimed “application.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 21, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Kanerva.
Because appellants argue that claims 4-7, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 34-37 stand or
fall with their corresponding independent claims 1, 21, and 31 (Br. 10-11,
13), we, therefore, sustain the rejection of those dependent claims for the
same reasons discussed above.
Appeal 2010-011640
Application 11/269,238

6

Dependent Claims 3 and 33
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3 and
33 as being anticipated by Kanerva because the claims require that a
“connection scope specif[ies] that a suitable resource manager should be
located, relative to the application itself . . . in the same process . . . that
includes the application.” Br. 12. Appellants argue that since a process
cannot be hardware, the claim is not met because Kanerva’s mobile station is
hardware and requests a connection to a mobile station that is also hardware.
Id.
Because we find that the Examiner did not err in finding that
Kanerva’s mobile stations inherently disclose an “application,” we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the rejection of claims 3 and 33 are
in error. We also concur with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions regarding these dependent claims as stated in page
12 of the Answer. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Kanerva.
Dependent Claim 30
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 30
because Kanerva teaches a register that stores information as to the location
of the mobile stations in the network. Br. 13. Appellants argue that the
register does not include the recited claim limitations of “a resource manager
identifier, an indication of the bus that the resource manager is connected to,
a host that includes the resource manager, a node that includes the resource
manager, an application server that includes the resource manager; and an
application process being executed by the resource manager.” Id. However,
Appeal 2010-011640
Application 11/269,238

7

Appellants’ argument does not address the specific findings the Examiner
made (Ans. 9, 10, 12) concerning the limitations alleged to be absent in
Kanerva. As such, Appellants’ argument does not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s position. .
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Kanerva.
B. Rejections of claims 2 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend that the combination of Kanerva and Nardin does
not teach or suggest the limitations of claims 2 or 32 because the
combination does not teach or suggest the features of receiving a connection
request from the application where the connection scope is specified in terms
of a maximum acceptable network delay. Br. 13. This is the entirety of the
proffered argument. Based on Appellants’ emphasis on the term
“application,” we therefore rely on and similarly dispose of the arguments
made with respect to that term as discussed supra. Further, Appellants’
contention does not address any specific finding made by the Examiner
regarding these claims. See Ans. 10-11. Therefore, Appellants’ contention
fails to show error in the Examiner’s findings, and is, therefore, not
persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 32 as being
unpatentable for obviousness over Kanerva and Nardin.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that Appellants fail to show error in
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the disputed claim
Appeal 2010-011640
Application 11/269,238

8

limitations. We, therefore, sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 21-23,
29-31, and 33-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kanerva;
and of claims 2 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kanerva in view of Nardin.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7, 9, 21-23,
and 29-37.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc