Ex Parte Batra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2012

10827566 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VIRINDER MOHAN BATRA, MINE ALTUNAY, CHETNA
DNYANDEO WARADE, DANIEL COLONNESE, and
SATYAPRASAD VADLAMUDI

___________

Appeal 2010-000792
Application 10/827,566
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, ERIC B. CHEN, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000792
Application 10/827,566

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to dynamically implementing a chain of
Web services from a client on the World Wide Web to execute a workflow.
(Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A system for dynamically implementing a chain of Web
services from a client on the World Wide Web to execute a workflow
for analyzing microarray data, comprising:
a database for storing a list of available Web services, wherein
each listed Web service includes a description of a task performed by
the Web service and an input signature and an output signature of the
Web service, wherein the Web service comprises a computer program
accessible over the World Wide Web; and
a selecting system for forming the chain of Web services by
selecting a Web service from the list of available Web services for
each of a plurality of tasks in the workflow, wherein the workflow
comprises a series of linked tasks and a specified input and output
format, and wherein the selecting examines a set of available Web
services configured to execute each task and identifies and selects at
least one Web service having matching input and output signatures
ensuring that each Web service selected to complete a task is
compatible with adjacent Web services in the chain of Web services;
and
a signature matching system for identifying the set of available
Web services configured to execute each task, wherein for each task
the identifying comprises identifying all Web services in the list of
available Web services having at least one of the matching input and
output signatures for each task.
Appeal 2010-000792
Application 10/827,566

3
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Farmer (WO 02/39486 A2; May 16, 2002).
Claims 7, 15, 19, and 201 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Farmer and Yung (U.S. Patent No. 6,909,974 B2; issued
June 21, 2005; filed June 4, 2003).

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 5-6) that Farmer
does not describe the first disputed limitation, “a database for storing a list of
available Web services,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the Services Broker of Farmer corresponds
to the limitation “a database for storing a list of available Web services.”
(Ans. 4, 16-17; Farmer, ¶¶ [0018], [0041], [0052].) We agree with the
Examiner.
Farmer relates to “a system for the integration of heterogeneous
bioinformatics software tools and databases that allows interoperation of
components.” (¶ [0009].) A computerized system of Farmer includes a
software platform with a Client Environment and a Client Bus, such that the
Client Bus includes a Services Broker function. (¶ [0016]; see also
¶ [0018].) “The interface to the ClientBus provides . . . [a] registry of a
component as a listener for a particular class of events . . . [and a] registry of
a component as a provider of particular services” (i.e., the claimed
“database”). (¶ [0041].) Furthermore, the system of Farmer includes an

1 The Examiner inadvertently rejected claim 20, which depends from
claim 19, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Farmer.
(Ans. 3.)
Appeal 2010-000792
Application 10/827,566

4
external resource (e.g., the Internet). (¶ [0052].) Accordingly, Farmer
discloses the limitation “a database for storing a list of available Web
services.”
Appellants argue that Farmer does not teach “a database for storing a
list of available web services” because: (i) “Farmer does not teach the
Services Broker as storing any information but rather as a go-between for
services,” and (ii) “[a] database stores information and specifically
Appellant’s database stores a list of available Web services.” (Br. 6.)
However, the Services Broker is portion of the ClientBus (¶ [0016]), which
provides a “registry of a component as a listener for a particular class of
events” and a “registry of a component as a provider of particular services”
(¶ [0041]), corresponding to the claimed “database.”
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Farmer describes the
limitation “a database for storing a list of available Web services.”
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 6-7) that
Farmer does not describe the second disputed limitation “a selecting system
for forming the chain of Web services by selecting a Web service from the
list of available Web services for each of a plurality of tasks in the
workflow,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the Figure 11 embodiment of Farmer, in
which four data models are linked, corresponds to the limitation “a selecting
system for forming the chain of Web services by selecting a Web service
from the list of available Web services for each of a plurality of tasks in the
workflow.” (Ans. 4, 18; Farmer, Fig. 11.) We agree with the Examiner.
Farmer describes a system for “integration of heterogeneous
bioinformatics software tools and databases that allows interoperation of
Appeal 2010-000792
Application 10/827,566

5
components.” (Abstract; see also ¶ [0009].) In one embodiment, Figure 11
of Farmer illustrates “a composite of four separate high-level data models”
(¶ [0073]) that includes a Map subsystem, a Sequence subsystem, a
Metabolic Pathway subsystem, and a Gene Expression subsystem
(¶¶ [0031]-[0034]). Because Farmer explains that four separate high-level
data models (e.g., a Map subsystem, a Sequence subsystem, a Metabolic
Pathway subsystem, and a Gene Expression subsystem) (i.e., the claimed
“each of a plurality of tasks in the workflow”) are integrated (Fig. 11;
Abstract), such that subsystems are available on an external source (e.g., the
Internet) (¶ [0052]), Farmer discloses the limitation “a selecting system for
forming the chain of Web services by selecting a Web service from the list
of available Web services for each of a plurality of tasks in the workflow.”
Appellants argue that “the citations to Farmer appear to address
‘interface components’ for various classes of databases.” (Br. 6.) In
particular, Appellants argue, “[0061] which states ‘an interface can be
defined for each of the fundamental classes’ and [0058] ‘these fundamental
classes tend to reflect stable and established models and concepts’ with
examples that discusses the entities of three genome related databases.”
(Br. 6-7.) However, the Examiner also cited to Figure 11 of Farmer, which
illustrates four separate linked high-level data models, for disclosing the
limitation “a selecting system for forming the chain of Web services by
selecting a Web service from the list of available Web services for each of a
plurality of tasks in the workflow.” (Ans. 18.) Appellants have not
provided any persuasive arguments rebutting the Examiner’s citation of
Figure 11.
Appeal 2010-000792
Application 10/827,566

6
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 7) that
Farmer does not describe the third disputed limitation “wherein the selecting
examines a set of available Web services . . . and selects at least one Web
service having matching input and output signatures ensuring that each Web
service selected to complete a task is compatible with adjacent Web services
in the chain of Web services,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the Dynamic Discovery of Farmer, which
evaluates registered service providers and allows components to
interoperate, corresponds to the limitation “wherein the selecting examines a
set of available Web services . . . and selects at least one Web service having
matching input and output signatures ensuring that each Web service
selected to complete a task is compatible with adjacent Web services in the
chain of Web services.” (Ans. 4-5, 19-20; Farmer, ¶ [0048].) We agree
with the Examiner.
Appellants’ Specification explains that:
In a typical application, workflow 14 may have a specified
input and output signature 16, e.g., in a bioinformatics
application the specified input signature to workflow 14 may
comprise a FASTA XML format for a set of input sequences,
and the output signature may comprise an XML file format for
providing spatial microarray placement data.
(Spec. 6:11-15 (emphases added).) Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, we interpret “signature” as
meaning a format of an input or an output file.
In the “Background of the Invention” section, Farmer explains that
“[t]o examine a DNA sequence in alignment with similar sequences from a
public database, the scientist [had to] use three different tools with three
different interfaces and convert the output from each one to a format
Appeal 2010-000792
Application 10/827,566

7
acceptable as input to the next.” (¶ [0003].) Farmer further explains that the
ClientBus supports a Dynamic Discovery, in “which registered service
providers evaluate a particular data object and respond whether or not their
services are suitable for it, and suitable services are forwarded to a
requester.” (¶ [0048].) Because Farmer explains a typical problem
encountered by scientists of matching formats between multiple tools and
that the Dynamic Discovery solves this problem by determining if multiple
services are suitable for one another, Farmer describes the limitation
“wherein the selecting examines a set of available Web services . . . and
selects at least one Web service having matching input and output signatures
ensuring that each Web service selected to complete a task is compatible
with adjacent Web services in the chain of Web services.”
Appellants argue that “the citations provided state the messages
between invoked programs are wrapped with a simple Java class” and
accordingly, “Farmer does not teach the matching of input and output
signatures.” (Br. 7 (emphasis in original).) However, the Examiner also
cited to the Dynamic Discovery of Farmer, which determines if multiple
services are suitable for one another, for describing the limitation “wherein
the selecting examines a set of available Web services . . . and selects at least
one Web service having matching input and output signatures ensuring that
each Web service selected to complete a task is compatible with adjacent
Web services in the chain of Web services.” Appellants have not provided
any persuasive arguments rebutting the Examiner’s citation of the Dynamic
Discovery of Farmer.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Farmer describes the
limitation “wherein the selecting examines a set of available Web services
Appeal 2010-000792
Application 10/827,566

8
. . . and selects at least one Web service having matching input and output
signatures ensuring that each Web service selected to complete a task is
compatible with adjacent Web services in the chain of Web services.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have
not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 16 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 16, as well as dependent claims 9-14,
17, and 18, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 7, 15, 19, and 20 separately (Br. 8), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants summarily allege that
“[f]or the reasons given above . . . appellant assert that claims 7, 15, and 19
that depend there from are allowable.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 8, and 16, from
which claims 7, 15, 19, and 20 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-000792
Application 10/827,566

9
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

rwk