Ex Parte Janarthanam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2019

14984113 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/984,113 12/30/2015
58735 7590 03/11/2019
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Baskaran Janarthanam
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
000140-007301US 8594
EXAMINER
DORAIS, CRAIG C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BASKARAN JANARTHANAM, DMITRI KRAKOVSKY,
DAVID RAGONES, ABHIJIT SAL VI, ABBAS RAZA,
MURALI MAZHA V ANCHERY, SIRISHA A YY AGARI, and
ANKURBHATT
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
Technology Center 2100
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20, which are all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the original
specification, filed Dec. 30, 2015, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional
Application Serial No. 62/214,848, filed Sept. 4, 2015 (Spec. ,r 1 ); "Final
Act." for the Final Office Action, mailed Aug. 21, 2017; "App. Br." for
Appellants' Appeal Brief, filed Jan. 11, 2018; "Ans." for Examiner's
Answer, mailed Apr. 26, 2018; and "Reply Br." for Appellants' Reply Brief,
filed June 25, 2018.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Successfactors, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
BACKGROUND
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to a
software system that receives event notifications from applications and
components and publishes event information to subscribers. Spec. ,r,r 2-3.
Claims 1, 5, and 6, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphasis added to disputed limitations):
1. A system comprising:
a set of event publishers configured to publish events
occurring on the event publishers;
a uniform event framework configured to receive, from
an event publisher in the set of event publishers, an event
notification indicating an event occurred on the event publisher
and generate an event structure based on the event notification;
and
an event bus configured to receive the event notification
from the uniform event framework and send the event structure
to a subset of a plurality of event subscribers for consumption
of the event structure,
wherein the event publisher is further configured to:
receive a first callbackfrom a first event
subscriber in the subset of the plurality of event
subscribers for a first set of data associated with the
event;
send, in response to receiving the first callback,
the first set of data associated with the event to the first
event subscriber;
receive a second callbackfrom a second event
subscriber in the subset of the plurality of event
subscribers for a second, different set of data associated
with the event; and
2
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
send, in response to receiving the second callback,
the second set of data associated with the event to the
second event subscriber.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App 'x) ( emphasis added).
5. The system of claim 1, wherein an event subscriber in the
subset of the plurality of event subscribers is configured to
forward the event structure to a set of event subscribers
operating on a different system.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the event publisher is a
rules engine configured to publish at least one event of the
events based on rules for configuring defined events.
Id. at 16 ( emphasis added).
THE REJECTIONS
RI. Claims 7, 13, 14, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 2-3.
R2. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Sanghvi (US 2002/0010804 Al, published Jan. 24, 2002) and Kampe
(US 2002/0016867 Al, published Feb. 7, 2002). Final Act. 3-10.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential). To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Indefiniteness Rejection RI of Claims 7, 13, 14, 16, and 20
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 13, 14, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 2-3. Appellants do not list this rejection
in the "Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal" and do not present
any arguments addressing it. App. Br. 9 ( emphasis omitted). We deem
Appellants to have waived any arguments as to this rejection. See Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the appellant fails to
contest a ground of rejection to the Board, ... the Board may treat any
argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived."); see also
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall explain why the examiner
erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant."). Accordingly,
we summarily sustain rejection RI.
Obviousness Rejection R2 of Claims 1-20
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Sanghvi and Kampe. Final Act. 3-10. Appellants argue independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 together as a group. See App. Br. 10-11. In addition,
Appellants argue dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 as a group (see id.
at 11-13) and dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 as a group (see id. at 13-14).
Accordingly, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we limit our discussion to independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 5 and 6. Independent claims 8 and 15 stand or fall with
independent claim 1; dependent claims 12 and 19 stand or fall with
4
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
dependent claim 5; and dependent claims 13 and 20 stand or fall with
dependent claim 6. The remaining dependent claims ( claims 2--4, 7, 9-11,
14, and 16-18) are not argued separately, and thus, they stand or fall with
the respective independent claim from which they depend.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites "a first callback from a first event subscriber ... for a
first set of data associated with the event" and "a second callback from a
second event subscriber ... for a second, different set of data associated
with the event." App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x). Claim 1 also specifies an
event publisher is configured to receive the first and second callbacks and, in
response, send the first and second set of data, respectively. Id.
For these limitations, the rejection relies on a combination of Sanghvi
and Kampe. Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner found Sanghvi's event
consumers (the claimed "event subscribers") send requests for event
information to the event producers (the claimed "event publishers"). Id. at 4
( citing Sanghvi ,r,r 35-36, Fig. 3). The Examiner found Kampe's subscriber
nodes dispatch callback functions and receive event data in response. Id.
at 5 ( citing Kampe ,r,r 4 7--48). The Examiner also found Kampe discloses a
second callback for a different set of data because Kampe's subscribers have
different event filters, and "different event filters" cause it to be "a different
set of data." Id. The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious "to
modify the teachings of Sanghvi by the teachings of Kampe in order to filter
between various types of events." Id.
Appellants argue Sanghvi "does not specifically disclose" the disputed
claim limitations. App. Br. 10. Turning to Kampe, Appellants argue
5
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
"Kampe clearly fails to disclose such features." Id. at 11. Specifically,
Appellants contend Kampe' s filters "are for identifying events of interest to
subscriber node applications," which allows different subscribers to receive
different events, and thus, "Kampe only discloses different subscriber nodes
receiving different events." Id.
We are not apprised of error in the Examiner's factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness. In particular, Appellants' argument is that
neither reference, individually, discloses all disputed claim limitations. App.
Br. 10 ("Sanghvi does not specifically disclose" all disputed limitations.); id.
at 11 ("Kampe clearly fails to disclose" all disputed limitations.). However,
the Examiner found claim 1 to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of
the combination of Sanghvi and Kampe. Final Act. 4--5. Under the law of
obviousness, a patent may not be obtained "if the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a
whole would have been obvious," even if the claim's limitations are not
"identically disclosed" in a prior art reference. 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
argue the references fail to specifically disclose the claimed limitations, but
fail to allege or demonstrate that the claim would not have been obvious in
light of the combined teachings and suggestions of the references.
Moreover, by arguing that neither Sanghvi nor Kampe alone teaches
all aspects of the limitation at issue, Appellants do not address the rejection
as articulated, in which the Examiner relies on combined teachings of the
prior art. See Final Act. 4--5; see also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually when rejection is based on teachings of a
combination of prior art references.).
6
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
Appellants argue the rejection is deficient because neither Sanghvi nor
Kampe disclose sending different sets of data associated with an event to
different subscribers. App. Br. 10-11. But, Appellants' argument is not
commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 1 recites sending "the first set of data associated with the event to the
first event subscriber" and sending "the second set of data associated with
the event to the second event subscriber." Id. at 15 (Claims App'x).
Although the claim language requires sending the first and second sets of
data to the first and second subscribers, respectively, it does not prohibit
sending both sets of data to both subscribers.
Further, Appellants contend neither reference discloses different
callbacks sent by different subscribers for different sets of data associated
with the event. Id. at 10-11. For the claimed first and second callbacks, the
Examiner pointed to Kampe' s callbacks and found different subscribers
would dispatch callbacks for different sets of data associated with the event
because the different subscribers use different filters to identify relevant
events. Final Act. 5. Appellants do not allege error in the Examiner's
finding that Kampe discloses different subscribers sending different
callbacks. Id.; App. Br. 11. Appellants also do not dispute the Examiner's
finding that different subscribers have different event filters. Id.; App.
Br. 11. Rather, Appellants argue Kampe only discloses subscribers sending
callbacks for data associated with different events, not for data associated
with the same event. App. Br. 11. However, Appellants fail to explain their
contention that Kampe' s callbacks are not for data associated with the same
event. Kampe transmits data associated with an event to all interested
subscribers, even though interested subscribers employ different filters. See,
7
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
e.g., Kampe ,r,r 24, 29, 4 7--49, 51. In other words, Kampe' s callbacks are for
data associated with several events, some of which will be different and
some of which will be the same. From this, the Examiner found Kampe
teaches callbacks for data associated with the same event, and we are not
persuaded of error in this finding.
Accordingly, Appellants do not show error in the Examiner's finding
that the combination of Sanghvi and Kampe teaches or suggests the disputed
claim limitations. Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record,
we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of
obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1, and independent claims 8 and 15 which recite the
disputed limitation in commensurate form.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites: "an event subscriber in the subset of the plurality of
event subscribers is configured to forward the event structure to a set of
event subscribers operating on a different system." App. Br. 16 (Claims
App'x) (emphasis added). The Examiner found Sanghvi discloses this
limitation, noting that different components of Sanghvi' s system may be on
different systems. Final Act. 10 ( citing Sanghvi ,r 59). The Examiner found
Sanghvi's Figure 3 teaches a "feedback of events into the system," meaning
"the next [subscriber] at times will be a different system." Id.
Appellants argue Sanghvi' s description of Figure 3 "does not
contemplate nor suggest any sort of feedback of events into the system."
App. Br. 12. In addition, Appellants submit the Examiner failed to show an
event subscriber that forwards the event structure to another subscriber
8
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
operating on a different system. Id. at 12-13. In response, the Examiner
points to a specific example from Sanghvi-an email message that forwards
information about the event-and explains this example shows a subscriber
operating on a different system. Ans. 5---6 (citing Sanghvi ,r,r 38, 49).
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner found Sanghvi' s event customers teach the "event subscribers"
recited by the claim. See Final Act. 4. Sanghvi describes four examples of
event customers, including mail customer 328, which "generates and sends
an email message 330 in response to receipt of each distributed event."
Sanghvi ,r 49. "The email message 330 may contain information about one
or more distributed events (such as the event type or the source of the
event)." Id. As the Examiner explained, sending an email message indicates
that the recipient of the email is operating on a different system. Ans. 5---6.
Appellants assert the Examiner "fails to account for the fact that the event
structure is first sent to an event subscriber," but Appellants fail to explain
why the mail customer identified by the Examiner does not teach an event
subscriber that receives and forwards the event structure. Reply Br. 4. By
not addressing the Examiner's reasoning, Appellants have not shown error in
the relevant findings or the legal conclusion as to obviousness, which we
determine to be supported by rational underpinnings. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (If an examiner presents a prima facie
case, "the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the
applicant.").
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 5, nor do we
9
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 5, and dependent claims 12 and 19, which recite the disputed
limitation in commensurate form.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites: "the event publisher is a rules engine configured to
publish at least one event of the events based on rules for configuring
defined events." App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added).
For this limitation, the Examiner points to Sanghvi, reasoning there
must be a rules component or engine in Sanghvi in order to determine
"when" to transmit events and "where" to send the events. Final Act. 10
(citing Sanghvi ,r,r 37-50, Fig. 4). Appellants argue Sanghvi fails to disclose
a rules engine, but rather uses filters. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. Appellants
allege the Examiner takes official notice because the Final Rejection did not
provide any evidence that Sanghvi' s system is implemented with a rules
component or engine. Id. at 13-14. Finally, Appellants state "[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art will understand that this function of Sanghvi may be
implemented any number of different ways." Id. at 14.
First, we find the Examiner's factual findings regarding the disclosure
of Sanghvi and rationale for concluding the claim limitation is obvious do
not constitute official notice. See MPEP § 2144.03 (9th ed., 2018) (Official
may be taken notice "of facts not in the record" or regarding "'common
10
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
knowledge.'"). Thus, Appellants' argument regarding official notice does
not persuade us of error. 3
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellants' substantive arguments
that Sanghvi does not disclose a rules engine. See App. Br. 13-14. The
Examiner reasoned a rules engine would have been used to implement
Sanghvi's event publication. Final Act. 10 (citing Sanghvi ,r,r 37-50,
Fig. 4); see Sanghvi ,r,r 40-46 (providing a query statement as an exemplary
event filter processed by event transformer 308). Appellants argue the
Examiner fails "to point to any evidence in Sanghvi that describes a rules
component or rules engine." Reply Br. 4. However, an express teaching,
suggestion, or motivation in the prior art is not a requirement for an
obviousness determination. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418-19 (2007) (Teaching-suggestion-motivation test is not a prerequisite to
an obviousness finding.). Further, Appellants do not explain why the use of
a rules engine is not taught or suggested by Sanghvi. In particular,
Appellants do not explain why Sanghvi' s disclosure fails to teach the
claimed "rules engine," and although Appellants state that Sanghvi "may be
implemented [in] any number of different ways," Appellants fail to identify
any such other ways. See App. Br. 14. Appellants' argument does not
3 Even assuming the Examiner relied upon Official Notice, a proposition we
do not accept, Appellants have not properly traversed the purported reliance
by stating that the purported well-known fact is not considered to be
common knowledge or well-known in the art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C) ("To
adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out
the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating
why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-
known in the art." (emphasis added) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.11 l(b)).
11
Appeal2018-006936
Application 14/984,113
identify any faulty reasoning or factual findings underlying the rejection and,
accordingly, does not apprise us of Examiner error.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 6, nor do we
find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 6, and dependent claims 13 and 20 which recite the disputed limitation
in commensurate form.
CONCLUSIONS
Appellants allege no error in the indefiniteness rejection RI of claims
7, 13, 14, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and we summarily sustain
that rejection.
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness rejection R2 of
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we sustain that rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
12