Ex Parte Lincoln et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

09855142 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

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