Ex Parte Bagsby

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

10402392 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

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