Ex Parte Beaven et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 16, 2012

09808501 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN ANTHONY BEAVEN, THOMAS JAMES FREUND,
GRAHAM CASTREE CHARTERS, AMANDA ELIZABETH CHESSELL,
IAIN STUART CALDWELL HOUSTON,
PETER ALEXANDER LAMBROS, CATHERINE SUSAN GRIFFIN,
MARTIN MULHOLLAND, FRANCIS NICHOLAS PARR,
IAN ROBINSON, DAVID JOHN VINES, and
CHRISTOPHER FRANK CODELLA
____________

Appeal 2010-005763
Application 09/808,501
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005763
Application 09/808,501

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-49. Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to a computer system having a processor
configured for component-based processing. Appeal Brief 2.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A computer system having a processor configured for
component-based processing, said system comprising:

a component specification element that specifies
components, wherein the components are reusable components;

a control flow specification element that specifies control
flows;

a data flow specification element that specifies data
flows;

a resource specification element that specifies resources;
and

a quality of service specification derivation element, the
quality of service specification derivation element having for
output an application model in combination with a quality of
service specification derived by implication from relations
between the components, the control flows, the data flows and
the resources;
Appeal 2010-005763
Application 09/808,501

3

wherein the quality of service specification derivation
element tests the components and the relations between the
components to derive the quality of service specification;

and wherein said quality of service specification is made
available to a runtime engine for deployment as a runtime
contract in a runtime processing environment.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-14, 17-30, 33-46, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Negri (U.S. Patent Application
Publication Number 2002/0059079; published May 16, 2002) in view of
Schmidt (Chair: Douglas C. Schmidt, QoS for Distributed Object Computing
Middleware -- Fact or Fiction?, Panel at the Fifth International Workshop
on Quality of Service (IWQoS ’97), May 22nd, 1997, Columbia University,
NYC, USA, http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/IWQOS-97.html). Answer
3-8.
Claims 15, 16, 31, 32, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Negri, Schmidt, and Koistinen (“Quality
of Service Aware Distributed Object Systems,” 5/1999). Answer 8-9.

Issue on Appeal
Does Negri, Schmidt, or Koistinen, alone or in combination,
implicitly or explicitly, disclose “wherein said quality of service
specification is made available to a runtime engine for deployment as a
runtime contract in a runtime processing environment” as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1, 18, and 34
Appeal 2010-005763
Application 09/808,501

4
Appellants’ arguments are directed to the independent claims 1, 18,
and 34 and therefore we address the arguments accordingly.
Appellants argue:
Appellants agree that Negri does not disclose that a
quality of service specification is made available to a
runtime engine for deployment as a runtime contract in a
runtime processing environment (see page 4 of the Final
Office Action). However, Appellants do not agree that it
would have been obvious to modify Negri’s disclosed
system to derive a runtime contract from a service delivery
model. Moreover, among other deficiencies, Negri does
not teach (or suggest) the derivation of a runtime contract
from a quality of service specification (that is derived by a
quality of service specification derivation element that
tests components and relations between the components)
or for that matter the use of runtime contracts.
Furthermore, Appellants note that the stated rationale for
declaring Appellants’ claimed subject matter obvious (i.e.,
that “[t]he service delivery model in Negri would help
‘ensuring the quality of eService delivery (0023)’ when
deployed at runtime”), while convoluted, appears to be
based solely on hindsight in view of Appellants’ own
disclosure as the Final Office Action failed to cite any
prior art reference in support of the position.
Appeal Brief 6.
However, the Examiner finds the rationale for declaring Appellants’
claimed runtime contract obvious to be proper because:
The eSM provides a service level agreement
(requirement/contract) from the model specification
defining Qos (Quality of Service) and BeX that
monitors/analyzes the behavior of components, processes,
and services to assure the Qos at the point of service
delivery (runtime) (0063; 0040; 0044). Therefore, the
eSM fulfills analyzing the service delivery process and
rapid deployment using a combination of eService
modeling and a BeX to “deliver on quality of service
Appeal 2010-005763
Application 09/808,501

5
commitments with confidence (0044).” Although Negri
does not explicitly state that the Qos specification
constructed from the eSM is made available to a runtime
engine for deployment as a runtime contract in a runtime
processing environment, the service delivery model
specification defining how the business process should be
executed at runtime in combination of BeXs control
(0063) would be later sent to a target (customers)
processor for execution (runtime engine) to realize the Qos
specified in the eService model. The Qos specification in
the model becomes the SLA (service level agreement)
which is the runtime contract when executed at the target.
Answer 10.
Appellants define runtime contract within their Specification as:
At the same time, those QOS properties that are not
suitable to be enacted within the EJB [(Enterprise Java
Beans)] . . . can be derived from the model, stored in the
form of properties on an XML tree representing the model,
and subsequently used to create a run-time contract
specifying the services that are required to be provided by
the target environment.
Specification 15.
Negri’s SLA is a contract specifying the level of service that is to be
provided. In this regard, the claimed “run-time contract,” as disclosed by
Appellants, is indistinguishable over Negri’s SLA. See Appeal Brief 7-8.
Appellants also argue Negri’s “BeXs do not test components and
relations between components to derive a quality of service specification”
because “the BeXs provide only a relatively small number of meaningful
events and supporting data to an e-service management service (see, for
example [0059]) to facilitate control of a quality of service for an e-service
and do not create a quality of service specification.” Appeal Brief 6.
Appeal 2010-005763
Application 09/808,501

6
The Examiner finds Negri discloses the claimed “wherein the quality
of service specification derivation element tests the components and the
relations between the components to derive the quality of service
specification” as recited in claim 1:
Negri's “eSM manages the service resources with an
exclusive focus on ensuring peak performance of
eBusiness services. . . . All monitoring, analysis and
control is done in context of the service (0040)” by using
BeXs that observe, learn, . . . optimize, and control the
entire functional model in the eService model (0056). The
BeX “utilizes the relationships within the eService model
to analyze the impact of related components” and
“leverages the relationships in the model to analyze the
effect of a component on eService delivery (0057)” to
replicate service delivery best practices and focus on
eService delivery more efficiently (0059).
Answer 11.
We agree with the Examiner that Negri discloses testing the
components as claimed because:
[The] eSM tests the components and relationships among
them in the eService model by using BeXs to derive the
“e-service management strategy based on the business
process specification “aiming at ensuring the quality of
eService delivery (0023; page 5, claim 1)” and assuring
“the customer experience at the point of service delivery
(0063).”
Id.
Appellants further argue that Negri fails to “teach or suggest a quality
of service specification derivation element that also derives a quality of
service specification by implication form relations between components,
control flows, data flows, and resources.” Appeal Brief 6-7. Appellants
further argue that Negri’s claim 1 is “merely directed to deriving an e-
Appeal 2010-005763
Application 09/808,501

7
service management strategy to ensure a service quality of the e-service by
incorporating needs imposed by a business process in criteria for managing
an infrastructure and monitoring an impact of the infrastructure in
accordance with the business process.” Id. at 7. Appellants argue that
Negri’s paragraph [0036] is merely directed to an SLM tool while Negri’s
paragraph [0050] “merely discloses that an e-service model establishes
implicit and explicit relationships between components . . . that defines an
actual topology of the model.” Id.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because the
Examiner finds and we agree that:
[T]he instant specification does not describe how the
implicit relationship is specifically established. The
specification, in page 14 states that the QOS specification
derivation engine derives the implicit QOS requirements
for the model from the relationships within the
specifications for the composed model. Negri clearly
discloses that the components relationships can be
established implicitly as well as explicitly (0050). That is,
in Negri, the dependencies among components, resource
sharing, exchanging data with each other and working
together in complex flows of control can be established
implicitly (0050). For example, the eService delivery
process is organized into a dependency graph of business
applications with their operation relationships, thus the
Customer Order Entry system depends on an implicit
access to the Customer Database etc and the eSM
recognizes and understands these dependencies whether
they are within a physical organization or across a virtual
enterprise (0051).
Answer 12.
Appeal 2010-005763
Application 09/808,501

8
We find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 18, and 34 under the various obviousness
rejections.

Dependent claims 8, 24, and 40
Appellants argue that, “Dependent claims 8, 24, and 40 further limit
their respective independent claims to defining a runtime contract as
comprising a completion requirement contract that specifies transactional
behavior.” Appeal Brief 7. Appellants further argue:
Appellants agree than [sic] an SLA is an agreement
between parties that specifies a level of service to be provided
and agree that a service level management tool may be used to
measure delivery of a service. However, Appellants do not
agree that an SLA and a service management tool render
obvious a runtime contract in the form of a completion
requirement contract that specifies transactional behavior.
Appeal Brief 7-8.
Appellants’ Specification merely states, “Preferably, said runtime
contract comprises a completion requirement contract specifying
transactional behavior.” Specification 7; See also Appeal Brief 4. The
Examiner finds and we agree that Appellants’ Specification does not define
a runtime contract having or comprising a “completion requirement” that
distinguishes the claims over the eService model disclosed in Negri.
Answer 13. We sustain the Examiner obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 8, 24, and 40 as well as dependent claims 2-7, 9-17, 19-23, 25-33, 35-
39, and 41-49 whose merits are not separately argued. In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Appeal 2010-005763
Application 09/808,501

9
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-49 are sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

llw