Ex Parte Lincoln et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 201609855142 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 09/855,142 05/14/2001 Adrian David Lincoln 881 7590 08/01/2016 STITES & HARBISON PLLC 1800 Diagonal Road SUITE 325 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 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. Pl 1212USOO/BAS 1124 EXAMINER CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2453 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2016 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): iplaw@stites.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADRIAN DAVID LINCOLN and CHARLIE WILLIAM DEBNEY Appeal2015-000783 Application 09/855,142 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 6, 8, and 11-21, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Vodafone Limited. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal2015-000783 Application 09/855,142 Claimed Subject Matter The invention generally relates to responding to an information request involved in an asynchronous data transaction. (Spec., Title; Abstract.) Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative: 6. A method of responding to an information request from a client device, the method including the steps of: receiving the information request from the client device; wrapping contents of the information request in at least one layer to produce a request object; transmitting the request object over a distributed network comprising a plurality of processing nodes, wherein transmission over the distributed network further comprises: at least one of the plurality of processing nodes adding a routing layer to the request object containing routing information relating to a next stage in processing of the request object based on the contents of the information request; at least one of the processing nodes adding a modification of the contents of the information request as an additional layer of the request object; and at least one of the processing nodes generating response data which is responsive to the information request and adding the response data to the request object; and transmitting the request object, including the response data and the contents of the information request, back to the client device. Rejection Claims 6, 8, and 11-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Michels et al. (US 6,549,519 Bl; issued Apr. 15, 2003) 2 Appeal2015-000783 Application 09/855,142 ("Michels") and Ciccarelli (US 6,009,422; issued Dec. 28, 1999). (Non- Final Act. 2-9.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 3-12; Reply Br. 2). On the record before us, we concur with Appellants' contention (App. Br. 4--7) that the Examiner has not pointed to sufficient evidence that Michels and Ciccarelli teach or suggest receiving the information request from the client device and wrapping contents of the information request in at least one layer to produce a request object, as recited in claim 6. The Examiner finds column 7, lines 8-9 of Michels teach a network frame, which the Examiner considers to be the claimed information request received from a client device. (Non-Final Act. 3.) The Examiner further finds Michels' search engines append a second search result to a first search result, which the Examiner finds is wrapping contents of the information request to produce a request object as claimed. (Ans. 3, 4 (citing Michels col. 2, 11. 50-62; col. 11, 11. 65----67, Figure 5); Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Michels col. 8, 11. 55----62).) Appellants argue Michels' search engines sequentially append searched digits to determine a memory address where a network address is located. (App. Br. 6.) We agree with Appellants that Michels' "appending process is appending digits to form a memory address that is not the network frame, which the Examiner asserts teaches the information request of claim 6." (App. Br. 7.) Thus, Michels' memory address is not the claimed request object because the Examiner has not shown it is produced by wrapping the 3 Appeal2015-000783 Application 09/855,142 network frame in a layer. The Examiner also has not sutliciently explained how appending digits generated from a lookup table search can be considered wrapping an information request in a layer. (See App. Br. 6, 7; Michels col. 8, 11. 37---65, Figures 4A--4D.) Accordingly, the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to show that Michels teaches a request object as required by claim 6. The Examiner also finds Ciccarelli' s fusing search results from search engines forms a fused response that is the same as wrapping contents of the information request in at least one layer to produce a request object as required in claim 6. (Ans. 4 (citing Ciccarelli col. 1, 1. 51---col. 2, 1. 10).) Ciccarelli teaches a search request is submitted to search engines, and the search results ("Hit Lists") received from the search engines are combined into a fused response. (See Ciccarelli col. 1, 1. 52---col. 2, 11. 10.) The Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to show that Ciccarelli' s fusing of search results teaches wrapping contents of the information request that was queried to obtain the search results. In light of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Michels and Ciccarelli. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 15, which recites wrapping contents of the search query in at least one layer to produce a request object, and independent claim 16, which recites a request object produced by wrapping contents of the information request in at least one layer. We similarly do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 8, 11-14, and 17-21. We do not address Appellants' remaining arguments because this issue is dispositive as to all pending claims. 4 Appeal2015-000783 Application 09/855,142 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 6, 8, and 11-21 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation