Ex Parte Selvakumar

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2007

09733596 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MANICKAM SELVAKUMAR
____________________

Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,5961
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: May 21, 2007
____________________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JAY P. LUCAS, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Application filed December 8, 2000. Appellant claims benefit under 35
U.S.C. § 119 of Provisional Application No. 60/173,751, filed December 30,
1999. The real party in interest is Texas Instruments Incorporated.
Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596

2
Appellant’s invention relates to a distributed web common gateway
interface (CGI) architecture and a method for the distribution of data files in
a distributed organization. In the words of the Appellant:
The distributed web common gateway
interface architecture includes a primary network
having a primary server. A database
communicates with the primary server. A plurality
of secondary networks are provided, with at least
one secondary server in the secondary network
(Specification 2: 3-8).
A method for the distribution of data files in
a distributed organization is provided. The
distributed organization has a plurality of networks
that communicate with a primary server, and each
network has a web browser running on it. The
method involves the steps of (1) entering a URL of
a data management system for a primary server in
a web browser; (2) entering user information; (3)
entering metadata for a data file to be transferred
to the primary server; (4) validating the data file at
the secondary server; (5) correcting errors
responsive to a failed validation; (6) releasing the
validated data file; (7) transferring the validated
data file to the primary server; and (8) storing the
data files in the primary server (Specification 2:
17-25).

Claims 1 and 11 are exemplary:
1. A distributed web common gateway
interface architecture, comprising:

a primary network having a single primary
server for processing validated files;

Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596

3
a database communicating with the primary
server;

a plurality of secondary networks; and

at least one secondary server for each
secondary network wherein the secondary server
only validates a data file and communicates results
to a user before it is released to the primary server.

11. A method for the distribution of data
files in a distributed organization, the distriubed
organization having a plurality of networks
communicating with a single primary server, each
network having a web browser running on it,
comprising the steps of:

entering a URL of a data management system for a
primary server in a web browser;

entering user information;

entering metadata for a data file to be transferred
to the single primary server for processing a
validated data file;

validating the data file at a secondary server that
only functions to validate a data file and
communicating results to a user before that file is
sent to the primary server;

correcting errors responsive to a failed validation;

releasing the validated data file;

Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596

4
transferring the validated data file to the primary
server;

storing the data files in the primary server.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Braddy 6,304,967 Oct. 16, 2001
Dole 6,634,008 Oct. 14, 2003

Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious
over Dole in view of Braddy.
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious, in that (1) neither Dole nor Braddy teaches validation of a
data file, and communication of the results thereof to a user, before release
of the file to a primary server; (2) neither Dole nor Braddy teaches a primary
network having a primary server, in combination with a plurality of
secondary networks each having at least one secondary server. The
Examiner contends that Dole does teach such validation, as well as the
claimed primary and secondary networks.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2

2 Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed separately
to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group,
Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596

5
ISSUES
There are two principal issues in the appeal before us.
The first issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, because no reference of
record teaches validating a data file at a secondary server and
communicating validation results to a user prior to release of the data file to
a primary server.
The second issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, because no reference of
record teaches a primary network and a plurality of secondary networks,
wherein data files are validated at a secondary server associated with a
secondary network prior to release of the data file to a primary server
associated with the primary network.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant invented a system and process of managing “deliverable”
data files of an organization or company distributed across diverse
geographical areas.
2. Appellant’s system includes a primary server on a primary network,
a database in communication with the primary server, and a number of
secondary networks, which may be located in different countries and
continents (Specification 3: 30).

except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a separate
argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596

6
3. Each secondary network has at least one secondary server, used to
validate data files submitted by users for compliance with an expected
specification (Specification 5: 3-5). If a data file contains defects, the user is
prompted to correct them and resubmit the file for validation (Specification
9: 10-16). Once a data file is validated successfully, it is “released” by that
secondary server and transmitted to the primary server (Specification 7: 3-6).
4. The data files validated may “include files created by CAD tools in
a design organization” (Specification 3: 32).
5. Appellant asserts that performing data file validation at the
secondary servers prior to transmission of the files to the primary server
saves time and network bandwidth as compared to the previous system, in
which validation was performed at the primary server (Specification 5:
16-25, 7: 20-28).
6. Dole teaches an environment for the cooperative design of
integrated circuits by several teams of designers. Dole teaches remotely
controlled workstations and “computer servers” connected to a primary
design server or a mirrored design server (col. 6, ll. 30-32).
7. Dole’s computerized design process inherently produces data files
containing data that describe the newly created design.
8. Workstations 203 and 209 and compute server 211 are associated
with the mirrored design server.
9. Dole teaches that engineers use the work stations to do their design
work – “access data and information, … provide data and information for
execution, … and to otherwise communicate with the primary design server
regarding the design” (col. 6, 48-52).
Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596

7
10. Dole teaches that the mirror design server is geographically
remote from the primary design server. Each server periodically interrogates
the other to determine if data on the other server has been updated, in an
attempt to keep identical data stored on both servers (col. 6, l. 63 to col. 7, l.
12).
11. Dole teaches “verification” as the penultimate step in the design
process. Verification consists of ensuring that the result of the design
conforms with the product specification (Fig. 9, step 415; col. 12, ll. 58-67).
12. Dole contains no teaching that any particular server performs the
verification function.
13. Dole does not disclose any time savings or efficiency gains from
verifying or validating designs through a secondary server before release
thereof to a primary server.
14. Dole teaches a web browser operating on at least one of the
networks, the entry of user information to identify a user, and the entry of
metadata for a data file to be transferred to the primary server.
15. Braddy teaches a database communicating with the primary server
(Fig. 4, data sources 78; col. 8, ll. 8-24).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See
also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some
objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of
Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596

8
ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shift to the Appellant. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See
also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the Examiner’s conclusion.

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that the concept of verification taught by
Dole, which ensures that the result of a design conforms with the product
specification, meets the claimed “validation,” defined by Appellant as
ensuring compliance of a data file with an expected specification (Finding
No. 3). As noted in Finding No. 7, Dole’s design process inherently creates
computer data files, and Appellant admits that the data files to be validated
could “include files created by CAD tools in a design organization” (Finding
No. 4).
We do not agree with the Examiner that Dole teaches a plurality of
secondary networks (as recited in claim 1), each with an associated
secondary server. At most, Dole teaches one secondary (“mirrored”)
network (Finding Nos. 6 and 8). Dole therefore has a single secondary
network, not a plurality, and fails to meet the claim limitation.
Further, Dole does not teach that the mirrored design server is charged
with validating data files prior to their release to the primary design server.
Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596

9
Dole teaches that engineers use the work stations to do their design work
(Finding No. 9). The mirrored design server is geographically remote from
the primary design server (Finding No. 10), and in the absence of a detailed
description in Dole we presume that similar design work occurs at the work
stations connected to the mirrored design server.
Because Dole does not specify a server (or servers) to perform
verification (Finding No. 12), and does not exclude the primary design
server as the server to perform verification (Finding No. 13), we conclude
that the Examiner erred in stating that the Dole reference teaches data file
validation by a secondary server prior to release of the file to a primary
server, as recited in claim 1.
For the reasons discussed supra, we also do not agree with the
Examiner that Dole teaches validating a data file at a secondary server in
each one of a plurality of networks, said plurality communicating with a
single primary server, as recited in claims 6 and 11.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-16. The
rejection of claims 1-16 is reversed.

Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596

10
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-16 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P. O. BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265