10848748 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2012)

Ex Parte Christensen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 9, 2012

10848748 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 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. 10/848,748 05/19/2004 Barbara A. Christensen RA 5605 (33012/383/101) 4644 27516 7590 02/09/2012 UNISYS CORPORATION Office of the General Counsel 801 Lakeview Drive, Suite 100 MailStop: 2NW Blue Bell, PA 19422 EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2012 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 BARBARA A. CHRISTENSEN, MICHAEL J. HILL, KENNETH L. REISING, JOHN C. HORTON, and EUGENE J. GRETTER ____________ Appeal 2009-013959 Application 10/848,748 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-013959 Application 10/848,748 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Invention Appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for and method of utilizing an Internet terminal coupled to the world wide web to access a legacy data base management system having a dialog-based request format using a standardized object-based command language, such as JavaScript, rather than the proprietary command language native to the legacy data base management system. This approach leverages the power of the legacy data base management without the need for the user to become familiar with the proprietary command language of the legacy data base management system. The approach is particularly efficient in that the user can easily specify the extent to which the dataset associated with honoring of the service request will be left in its original state or a modified state. Abstract. Representative Claim 1. An apparatus comprising: a. a terminal computer operable by a user which generates a user request in a standardized object-based command language for access to a data base; b. a legacy data base management system including a hardware server which cannot execute said standardized object-based command language responsively coupled to said Appeal 2009-013959 Application 10/848,748 3 terminal computer which honors said user request by execution of a non-standardized command language to produce a result from a dataset within said data base; c. a conversion facility for conversion of said standardized object-based command language to said non-standardized command language which is executable by said legacy data base management system; and d. a facility responsively coupled to said legacy data base management system which prepares said result for transfer to said terminal computer and which modifies said dataset if and only if specified in said service request. Prior Art Connor US 5,806,067 Sep. 8, 1998 Braddy US 6,141,759 Oct. 31, 2000 Rangnekar US 2005/0192851 A1 Sep. 1, 2005 The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rangnekar and Connor. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rangnekar, Connor, and Braddy. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 of the copending applications 10/848,758, 10/848,470, 10/848,899, 10/848,901, and 10/849,469. Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 21 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 6 of US Patent 6,721,722. Appeal 2009-013959 Application 10/848,748 4 Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 10 of US Patent 7,013,341. PRINCIPAL ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Rangnekar and Connor teaches “a conversion facility for conversion of said standardized object-based command language to said non-standardized command language which is executable by said legacy data base management system” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Section 103 rejection of claims 1-5 Claim 1 recites “a conversion facility for conversion of said standardized object-based command language to said non-standardized command language which is executable by said legacy data base management system.” The Examiner finds that the HTML in paragraphs 118 and 119 and in Figures 18 and 19 of Rangnekar teach the conversion facility. Ans. 5. Appellants contend that the cited portions of Rangnekar do not teach conversion of the command language. Ans. 46-47. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has not explained how Figures 18 and 19 of Rangnekar, which show an ATM interface, or paragraphs 118 and 119, which discuss displaying a web page and transmitting cookies, teach “a conversion facility for conversion of said standardized object-based command language to said non-standardized Appeal 2009-013959 Application 10/848,748 5 command language which is executable by said legacy data base management system.” We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or corresponding dependent claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 6-10 The Examiner finds that the centralized reservation system 30 of Rangnekar corresponds to the claimed “legacy data base management system.” Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that paragraph 142 of Rangnekar teaches “converting said service request from said standardized object-based command language into said non-standardized command language by said legacy data base management system” as recited in claim 6. Ans. 7. Paragraph 142 of Rangnekar teaches a server 24, shown in Figure 3, that converts a request to a query that is understandable by a centralized reservation system 30. However, paragraph 142 does not teach that the legacy centralized reservation system 30 converts a service request from a standardized object-based command language into a non-standardized command language. Nor has the Examiner provided an explanation of how converting a request to a query at a server 24 teaches “converting said service request from said standardized object-based command language into said non-standardized command language by said legacy data base management system” as recited in claim 6. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 or corresponding dependent claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2009-013959 Application 10/848,748 6 Section 103 rejection of claims 11-15 The Examiner finds that paragraphs 9, 10, and 28 of Rangnekar describe “converting means responsively located within said offering means for converting said service request from said standardized object-based programming language to said non-standardized scripted command language” as recited in claim 11. According to the Examiner, “converting means” encompasses the telecommunications network described by Rangnekar that has a proprietary command driven format and a CRS systems proprietary format. Ans. 9. A claim limitation is presumed to invoke § 112, ¶6 when it explicitly uses the phrase “means for” or “step for” and includes functional language. That presumption is overcome when the limitation further includes the structure necessary to perform the recited function. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Part 1, § III.C.3, 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). If the claim limitation invokes § 112, ¶ 6, the claim limitation must be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Id. at 7164. The “means for” limitations recited in claim 11 are set forth in purely functional terms and do not describe structure. Therefore, claim 11 invokes § 112, ¶6. We must construe “converting means responsively located within said offering means for converting said service request from said standardized object-based programming language to said non-standardized scripted command language” limitation to cover the corresponding structure Appeal 2009-013959 Application 10/848,748 7 described in the Specification and equivalents thereof. The “offering means” corresponds to the enterprise server 20 and storage subsystem 22, as shown in Figure 1 of Appellants’ Specification. Br. 19-20. The “converting means responsively located within said offering means” corresponds to the JavaScript parser 38 and MOSAPI 42 located within the enterprise server 20 and storage subsystem 22. Id. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Rangnekar teach that certified reservation staff who are well versed in feeding passenger requests in a proprietary command driven format perform a booking process. Paragraph 28 of Rangnekar teaches an on-line lottery system. The Examiner has not explained how paragraph 9, 10, and 28 of Rangnekar describe a JavaScript parser and a MOSAPI located in an enterprise server and storage subsystem within the meaning of claim 11. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 or corresponding dependent claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 16-20 The Examiner finds that paragraph 207 of Rangnekar teaches “a conversion facility located within said legacy data base management system which converts said service request from said standardized object-based command language to said non-standardized command language” as recited in claim 16. Ans. 10. The Examiner also finds that the centralized management reservations system of Rangnekar teaches the legacy data base management system. Ans. 5. Appeal 2009-013959 Application 10/848,748 8 Paragraph 207 of Rangnekar teaches a CGI program of host system 20 on server 36 that can interface with CRS 30. The Examiner has not explained how paragraph 207 of Rangnekar teaches “a conversion facility located within said [centralized management reservations system] which converts said service request from said standardized object-based command language to said non-standardized command language” as recited in claim 16. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 or corresponding dependent claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claim 21 The Examiner finds that Rangnekar teaches a conversion facility for conversion of said standardized object-based command language to said non-standardized command language. Ans. 12. However, claim 21 recites “a conversion facility located within said legacy data base management system for conversion of said standardized object based command language to said non-standardized command language which is executable by said legacy data base management system.” The Examiner has not explained how “a conversion facility located within said legacy data base management system” is taught by the prior art. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2009-013959 Application 10/848,748 9 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Rangnekar and Connor teaches “a conversion facility for conversion of said standardized object-based command language to said non-standardized command language which is executable by said legacy data base management system” as recited in claim 1. 1 DECISION The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rangnekar and Connor is reversed. The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rangnekar, Connor, and Braddy is reversed. REVERSED msc 1 The Examiner has made several nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections (see Ans. 13-17) to which Appellants provided no response by failing to present arguments in the appeal Brief and thus, waived any appeal of the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections. In view of our decision not to sustain the rejections over prior art, we will not decide the appeal as to the obviousness-type double patenting rejections and direct the Examiner to process these rejections consistent with the corresponding provisions of MPEP §804.