Ex Parte BagsbyDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 31, 201210402392 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012) 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. 10/402,392 03/28/2003 Denis Bagsby 1033-SS00361 8667 84326 7590 07/31/2012 AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING ROOM 2A-207 ONE AT & T WAY BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921 EXAMINER DIVECHA, KAMAL B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/31/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DENIS L. BAGSBY ____________ Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of all pending claims, claims 1-7, 17-30, and 43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Invention The invention is a distributed computer system for use in connection with telecommunications operational support. One embodiment of the invention is shown in Figure 1 following: Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 3 Figure 1 depicts enterprise integration architecture. This architecture includes a business application service 102 in communication with common integration bus 106 through an adapter 104. In addition, a business integration service 108, a business integration service shared workspace 114, and a business integration service 122 are connected to the common integration bus 106. ¶ [1020]. In another embodiment (see Figure 3 below), various customer channels 302 access a business application services framework 304. The business application services framework 304 has infrastructure interface 306. The infrastructure interface accesses the infrastructure system services 308. The business application services framework 304 may provide various functionality including billing, assurance, and fulfillment. ¶ [1032] Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 4 Exemplary Claims Exemplary claims 1 and 17 follow: 1. A distributed computer system for use in connection with telecommunications operational support, the distributed computer system comprising: a common integration communication bus; a business integration service application residing on one or more servers, the business integration service application executable by a processor to issue a request for a service from an integration services module and to provide one of a billing functionality, a fulfillment functionality, a customer assurance functionality, customer care services and provider care services; an adapter module responsive to the business integration service application, the adapter module coupled to the common integration communication bus and adapted to transmit the request received from the business integrated service application to the common integration communication bus; and wherein the integration services module is coupled to the common integration communication bus, and wherein the integration services module is adapted to receive the request from the common integration communication bus to provide the service. Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 5 17. A distributed computing system comprising: a plurality of channel access interfaces; an application services framework coupled to the plurality of channel access interfaces, the application services framework adapted to provide one of billing functionality, fulfillment functionality, and customer assurance functionality to one of the plurality of channel access interfaces, the application services framework having a first distributed infrastructure interface; a common integration services framework comprising one or more servers, and including a plurality of shared layered integration services adapted to provide a plurality of shared services to the application services framework, the common integration services framework having a second distributed infrastructure interface; and a distributed infrastructure system having a plurality of distributed networked computing elements, wherein the distributed infrastructure system is communicatively coupled to the first distributed infrastructure interface and to the second distributed infrastructure interface. App. Br. 16, 20 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 6 Rejections on Appeal 1. All claims stand rejected under 35 USC § 102(e) as anticipated by Goodman US Patent 7,020,697 B1, filed November 3, 2000. 2. Certain claims (1-7, 17-30) stand provisionally rejected for obviousness-type double patenting over various claims of three co-pending applications: 10/402,361; 10/402,341; and10/402,342. ANALYSIS Legal Principles Anticipation “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference - in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 - must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’ Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed.Cir.1983).” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(footnote omitted). As the Federal Circuit explained, “our precedent informs that the ‘arranged as in the claim’ requirement applies to Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 7 all claims and refers to the need for an anticipatory reference to show all of the limitations of the claims arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claims, not merely in a particular order. The test is thus more accurately understood to mean ‘arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.’” Id. at 1370. Inherency “It is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it. … Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added; citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Rejection of Claims 1-7 Goodman describes an architecture for a “net-centric” computing. According to the summary, the invention provides a “browser-centric Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 8 application style” offering an alternative to prior art business solutions. Goodman, col. 2, ll. 45-55. Further according to Goodman, “Web browsers provide a ‘universal client’ that offer users a consistent and familiar graphical user interface. Using a browser, a user can launch many types of applications and view many types of documents and media types. This can be accomplished on different operating systems/platforms and is independent of where the applications or documents reside. To that end, browsers change the way in which information is stored, transferred and updated as well as the way in which applications are executed.” Id. In rejecting claims 1-7 as anticipated by Goodman, the Examiner finds each claim element of the claims in the reference, either explicitly or inherently. Ans. 7-10. As to the element “common integration communication bus” the Examiner relies on inherency. Specifically, the Examiner states: “[a] communication bus is an inherent component of a computer system. Without the communication bus, the computer system and/or a framework configured on a computer system will simply be inoperable." Final Rej. 2. The Examiner’s Answer thus refers to the bus as “an inherent component or element of a computer and/or a computing system.” Ans. 7. The Examiner’s reliance on inherency does not support the rejection. It is not enough to show that computer systems of the type suggested by Goodman inherently have busses. Anticipation requires not only that each element of the claim be necessarily present in the reference, but also the arrangement or combination of the elements as set forth in the claim be Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 9 there. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., supra. At most, the Microsoft computer dictionary relied on by the Examiner (Ex. C) and the references in Goodman to certain server configurations (Ans. 7) point to the possible presence of a generic bus. But they do not establish the necessary existence of a common integration communications bus as described in the claims and shown in Figure 1, that is, one to which an adapter module and integration services module as described in the claim are coupled, among other attributes. Thus, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not established anticipation of claims 1-7. The Examiner has failed to carry the burden of showing that the recitations of claims 1-7 calling for a specifically defined arrangement of a bus, adapter module, and integration services module are present in Goodman. We therefore reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1-7. Rejection of Claims 17-30 and 43 Independent claim 17 is directed to the embodiment of Figures 3 (reproduced supra) and 4. App. Br. 3. The claim recites inter alia an application services framework (304) coupled to plural channel access interfaces as well as two separate distributed infrastructure interfaces (306, 332). The first infrastructure interface is associated with the business applications service framework (304) and the second infrastructure interface is associated with the business integration services framework (332). Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 10 Appellant contends that Goodman fails to disclose the application services framework coupled to the channel access interfaces as well as the distributed infrastructure interfaces. App. Br. 9; Rep. Br.4- 6. The Examiner responds to these contentions at pages 39-42 of the Answer. The Examiner begins by repeating the response to Appellant’s argument with respect to claims 1-7 that the adapter module recited in those claims is not found in Goodman. See Ans. 39-40. Further, the Examiner concludes that the “channel access interfaces are equivalent to the adapters as presented in claim 1.” Ans. 40 (top). We find that there is insufficient record support for this finding. Therefore , we are not persuaded by the Examiner’s further analysis of claim 17 as anticipated by Goodman to the extent it is based on that erroneous finding. We start with the well-settled proposition that “[i]n the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.” CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). While the Examiner cites references in Appellant’s specification (e.g., Ans. 40, first paragraph), they do not support a finding of equivalence. Cited paragraph [1049] describes the interface services layer, not the channel access interface. See Fig. 3, item 330. Cited paragraph [1055] refers to a description of the resource connector layer and does not mention adapters. And the brief discussion of adapters in cited paragraph [1057] simply says that “an adapter or connector may be coupled to or given access to the resource system” with no further details. In sum, we do not see adequate support for the Examiner’s finding of equivalence between adapters in claim 1 and the channel access interfaces of claim 17. Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 11 Thus, we do not see in the Examiner’s analysis of Goodman (Ans. 39- 42) exactly where the Examiner finds the application services coupled to channel access interfaces called for in the claims. We find the Examiner’s analysis unpersuasive, in part due to the lack of clarity in the citations, but also due to the Examiner’s erroneous finding discussed supra. As our rules state: “When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable.” 37 C.F.R. 1.104(c)(2). Appellant further contends that the Examiner erred in relying on certain items (62, 66, 72, and 80) in Goodman Figure 5 as disclosing the first and second distributed infrastructure interfaces in claim 17. See Ans.11, Reply 5-6. We agree with Appellant that these citations do not support the Examiner’s finding that those interfaces are present in Goodman. For example, the Examiner points to element 62 in Figure 5 as showing the first distributed infrastructure interface. Ans. 41. But element 62, described by Goodman as “presentation services,” is further described (col. 72, ll. 25-29) as “applications to manage the human-computer interface.” Likewise, the common user interface (GUI) in Goodman cited by the Examiner as teaching the first distributed infrastructure interface (Ans. 42) is a user interface. In contrast, the infrastructure interfaces access the infrastructure system services 308. ¶[1032]. They are not user interfaces. In sum, we find insufficient support in these record citations for the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as anticipated by Goodman. We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 17. Appeal 2010-002929 Application 10/402,392 12 The anticipation rejection of claims 18-29, which depend from claim 17, is reversed also for the reasons just stated. Claims 30 (independent) and 43 (depending from 30) also recite customer channel access interfaces and first and second distributed infrastructure interfaces as in claim 17. The anticipation rejection of those claims is reversed for the same reasons as claim 17. . Double Patenting We agree with Appellant that the double patenting rejection is premature because the claims have not been rejected over any allowed claims. We therefore dismiss the appeal as to this rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of claims 1-7, 17- 30, and 43 is REVERSED. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation