Ex Parte Leming et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 22, 201613172708 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/172,708 06/29/2011 46320 7590 07/26/2016 CRGOLAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Matthew W. Leming 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. GB920110048US1 (739) 7799 EXAMINER DO,STEVENM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2196 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2016 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@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHEW W. LEMING, MARK R. PHILLIPS, and FENGLIAN XU Appeal2014-009462 Application 13/172,708 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants seek rehearing of the May 19, 2016 Decision on Appeal (the "Decision"), wherein we affirmed (a) the rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and (b) the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of Hite, Bendiksen, Harrison, and Goyal. We have reconsidered the Decision in light of Appellants' Request for Rehearing (the "Request") but are not persuaded any points were misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52. Appeal2014-009462 Application 13/172,708 ANALYSIS The Request asserts only that the Board overlooked Appellants' argument "that Hite cannot account for the claimed 'service definition document for each identified application instance using the related message exchange data to describe computational services provided by the identified application instance."' (Request 5.) We do not agree. This issue was presented on pages 9-11 of the Appeal Brief, where Appellants argued that "the meta-ontology according to Hite is associated with a plurality ontologies and thus associated with a plurality applications," but "[i]n comparison, the claimed service definition document is associated with one particular application instance and describes the computational services provided by the particular application instance." (App. Br. 11.) The Decision addressed this issue as Appellants' Contention 2, observing that, in Hite, "[ e Jach ontology includes one or more ontology elements, which represent one or more components of the application including, e.g., input parameters, output parameters, and/or services (e.g., a service, a class method, function call, etc.)" and that "Appellants have not persuaded us that the ontology elements, which represent 'input parameters, output parameters, and/ or services' do not describe functionality of the application instance." (Decision 6.) Notably, the "functionality" language was drawn from Appellants' argument. (See App. Br. 10 ("It is noted that an ontology, which represents a concept within a domain, is not the same as a service definition which describes functionality offered by a web service.").) Even though we already evaluated this issue, we have considered it again in response to the Request, but reach the same result. Although Appellants argue that the "claim language ... is very specific in that the 2 Appeal2014-009462 Application 13/172,708 'service definition document for each identified application instance' must 'describe computational services provided by the identified application instance'" (Request 5), Appellants fail now, as before, to explain why Rite's ontology elements "which represent one or more components of the application including, e.g., input parameters, output parameters, and/or services (e.g., a service, a class method, function call, etc.)" (Hite i-f 10) do not "describe computational services provided by the identified application instance." DECISION We grant Appellants' request to reconsider our Decision, but deny Appellants' request that the Decision be modified. Our decision is final for purposes of judicial review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(l). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). DENIED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation