11333162 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

Ex Parte Chan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 28, 2012

11333162 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/333,162 01/17/2006 Victor Chan CA920050041US1 (034) 6340 46320 7590 03/29/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER AL HASHEMI, SANA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte VICTOR CHAN, MARK W. HUBBARD, JACOB VANDERGOOT, and TONY C. WOO ____________________ Appeal 2012-0058141 Application 11/333,162 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 In a prior Decision (Appeal Number 2009-002112, dated August 20, 2010, available at http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2009002112- 08-20-2010-1) (“Decision”), we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 as being anticipated by Ku but reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 as being indefinite. Appeal 2012-005814 Application 11/333,162 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to the field of commerce computing and more particularly to context driven component based commerce systems (Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below: 1. A component based data processing system comprising: a plurality of content repositories, each of the content repositories conforming to a uniform data structure, but having different values for fields of the data structure; a business context engine managing the business contexts associated with an activity; a runtime environment configured for coupling to the business context engine; a component based application supported by the runtime environment, the component based application comprising at least one component comprising business logic and data access logic; and, Appeal 2012-005814 Application 11/333,162 3 repository mapping logic coupled to the component based application and business context engine, the repository mapping logic comprising program code enabled to map at least one of the content repositories to the data access logic based upon a context for a transaction received from the business context engine. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Marsh US 2007/0033531 A1 Feb. 08, 2007 (filed Aug. 04, 2005) Ku US 6,970,883 B2 Nov. 29, 2005 Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings Ku in view of Marsh. II. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Ku in view of Marsh would have taught or suggested “a business context engine managing the business contexts associated with an activity,” as required by claim 1? III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Appeal 2012-005814 Application 11/333,162 4 Ku 1. Ku discloses searching one or more COBRA Interface Repositories for objects based on a set of specified search criteria (col. 5, ll. 14-17), wherein a user interface is provided which comprises a first panel that allows a user to specify a variety of criteria for which to search one or more Interface Repositories and a second panel that provides a textual listing of the found objects (col. 5, ll. 17-23). Marsh 2. Marsh discloses that the query, results and delivery of secondary content can be subjected to a operational or business “rules” engine, wherein the relatedness (content quality), type, quantity, order, and other parameters associated with the delivery of the secondary content can be controlled (pp. 15-16, [0147]) and wherein the rules engine comprises a supervisory entity which monitors and selectively controls the search query information, distribution, and results selection/presentation functions at a higher level (p. 16, [0148]). VI. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph In the Final Office Action, the Examiner points out that claim 1 recites that the data access logic “comprises at least one component comprising business logic and data access logic” (FOA 2). Accordingly, the Examiner finds that “[c]laim 1 is … indefinite and confusing since the data access logic is recited as being both optional and mandatory at the same time” (id.). Appeal 2012-005814 Application 11/333,162 5 As set forth in our previous Decision for Appeal No. 2009-002112, we disagreed with the Examiner that the data access logic of claim 1 is recited as optional (Decision 5). In the Decision, we found that claim 1 “requires at least one component, wherein the component comprises a business logic and data logic” (id.). Similarly on this appeal, we find that claim 1 requires that the at least one component comprises the data access logic as well as business logic. We note that, though Appellants’ Brief traverses the rejection and directs the Examiner’s attention to our previous Decision (App. Br. 5-7), the Examiner’s Answer fails to address this argument by Appellants. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 1 and claims 2-7 standing therewith are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As to independent claims 1, 8, and 12, Appellants contend that “a ‘business context engine’ which has been expressly recited as ‘managing business contexts associated with an activity’… cannot be found in the combination of Ku and Marsh” (App. Br. 11). In particular, Appellants contend that Marsh “fails to teach a business context engine” but rather “recites a ‘business rules engine’” wherein “the term ‘context’ means … ‘the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning’” while “[t]he term ‘rules’ … means ‘regulation or bylaws governing procedure or controlling conduct’” (App. Br. 12 (citing Appellants’ Amendment)). However, the Examiner explains that “business context engine” is “well known in the art [as] a set of rules or policy applied to perform a series Appeal 2012-005814 Application 11/333,162 6 of step to accomplish the requested action” wherein Marsh “discloses the business rule engine where all the required steps to perform an activit[y] are applied” (Ans. 8). That is, the Examiner finds that Marsh discloses an “engine managing the business associated with an activity” (Ans. 4). The Examiner further explains that, consistent with Appellants’ specification that “the business context 280 can be utilized in mapping a content repository to component logic within the business component” (Spec. ¶ [0029]), Ku discloses “context information (search query inputs) … which means the context is the user’s input in the search query” (Ans. 8). Thus, the Examiner finds that the “[s]killed artisan would have been motivated to make such modification [of Marsh] to the Ku system to provide a type of management to the context related to each activity” (Ans. 5) Thus, we address on appeal whether the combination of Ku in view of Marsh teaches or would have suggested “a business context engine managing the business contexts associated with an activity” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 12. We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 1 defines a “business context engine” as “managing the business contexts associated with an activity.” However, claim 1 does not define “business contexts” other than that “business contexts” are associated with an activity. As the Examiner points out, Appellants’ Specification states that “the business context 280 can be utilized in mapping a content repository to component logic within the business component” (Spec. ¶ [0029] (quoted at Ans. 8)). As set forth in our previous Decision, we interpret “context” as meaning an “aspect of an activity” which can be Appeal 2012-005814 Application 11/333,162 7 utilized in mapping a content repository to component logic, consistent with the definition in the Specification provided by Appellants (Decision 7). Accordingly, we interpret “business context engine” as any engine that manages aspects of an activity used to map a content repository to data access logic. Ku discloses a system for searching repositories for objects based on a set of user-specified search criteria (FF 1). We find no error with the Examiner’s finding that Ku discloses “context information (search query inputs) … which means the context is the user’s input in the search query” (Ans. 8). In particular, we find that the query information used to search the Repositories to be aspects of a search activity provided by the search facility, wherein the Repositories are accessed based on the aspects/query information provided. Thus, in view of this broad but reasonable claim interpretation, we find Ku discloses “business contexts” associated with an activity, as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, Marsh discloses an engine to which a query can be subjected to control the relatedness (content quality), type, quantity, order, and other parameters associated with the delivery of content, wherein the engine includes a supervisory entity which monitors and selectively controls the search query information, distribution, and results selection/presentation functions (FF 2). We find Marsh discloses an engine that controls/manages query information. Thus, in view of Ku’s teaching of query information being used to map content repository to a data access logic, we conclude that Ku in view of Marsh would have at least suggested an engine that manages aspects of an activity used to map a content repository to data access logic. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings Appeal 2012-005814 Application 11/333,162 8 would have taught or at least suggested “a business context engine managing the business contexts associated with an activity” as required by claim 1 Although Appellants argue that “a ‘business context engine’ … cannot be found in the combination of Ku and Marsh” (App. Br. 11) and that Marsh “fails to teach a business context engine” (App. Br. 12), Appellants appear to be arguing that Ku and Marsh individually do not show the claimed invention. However, the test for obviousness is not what each reference shows but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We find that the artisan, upon reading Marsh, would find it obvious to use an engine to manage the business contexts/query information of Ku. The Supreme Court has determined that the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We conclude that such application of Marsh’s managing engine to manage Ku’s query information used to map content repository to data access logic is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appeal 2012-005814 Application 11/333,162 9 Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 8 and 12 falling therewith, over Ku in view of Marsh. Since Appellants do not provide arguments for claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-15 separate from those of claims 1, 8, and 12 from which they respectively depend, claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-15 fall with claim 1. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection with respect to claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) but reverse the Examiner’s reject with respect to claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED peb