Ex Parte Ayres et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201311269238 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation