Ex Parte Christensen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 14, 2010

10849469 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BARBARA A. CHRISTENSEN, MICHAEL J. HILL,
KENNETH L. REISING, JOHN C. HORTON, and EUGENE J. GRETTER
____________________

Appeal 2009-006005
Application 10/849,4691
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: April 14, 2010
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed May, 19, 2004. The real party in interest is Unisys Corp.
Appeal 2009-006005
Application 10/849,469

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1 through 21 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We affirm the rejection.

Appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for accessing
information stored in a legacy database management system. (See claim 1;
Spec. 6, ll. 5-8.) The apparatus includes a conversion facility that translates
a user request made in a standardized object-based command language into a
non-standardized, legacy system language (id.). In the words of Appellants:
The present invention [provides] a method
of and apparatus for utilizing the power of a full
featured legacy data base management system by a
user at a terminal coupled to the world wide web
or Internet using a standardized object-based
command language. . . . [A] user interface, called
a gateway … translates transaction data transferred
from the user [–] over the Internet in HTML
format [–] into a format from which data base
management system commands and inputs may be
generated.
(Spec. 6, ll. 2-8).

Claim 1 is exemplary, and is reproduced below:
1. An apparatus whereby a user can communicate
using a first computer language with a legacy
system having a second language comprising:

2
Appeal 2009-006005
Application 10/849,469

a. a terminal which generates a user request in
a standardized object-based command language;

b. a legacy data base management system
responsively coupled to said terminal which
honors said user request by execution of a non-
standardized command language; and

c. a conversion facility located within and
executed by said legacy data base management
system for conversion of said standardized object-
based command language to said non-standardized
command language.

In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art :
Shappir US 2003/0051070 A1 Mar. 13, 2003

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Shappir.

Appellants contend that Shappir does not anticipate the claimed
subject matter because Shappir fails to teach that Appellants’ claimed
“conversion facility” is actually “within … said legacy database
management system,” as recited in claim 1 (Brief 21, bottom to 22, top).
The Examiner contends that each of the claims is properly rejected (Ans. 30,
top).
We will consider only those arguments that Appellants raised in the
Brief, and in the order argued therein. Any other Arguments that Appellants
3
Appeal 2009-006005
Application 10/849,469

could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The issue
specifically turns on whether Shappir teaches “a conversion facility located
within … said legacy data base management system” (claim 1).

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Disclosure
1. Appellants have invented an apparatus and method for accessing a legacy
database management system. (See claim 1; Spec. 6, ll. 5-8.) A
conversion facility translates a user request from a standardized object-
based command language into a non-standardized, legacy system
language (id.).
Shappir
2. The Shappir reference teaches a method and system for accessing a
legacy system. (See Abstract.) Shappir further teaches a task server and
an “Application Programming Interface” (API) that translate a user
request from a standardized application programming interface into
commands a legacy system recognizes. (See ¶¶ [0015] to [0018];
¶ [0068].)
4
Appeal 2009-006005
Application 10/849,469

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006).

In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

[The] Examiner has made extensive specific fact finding,
as detailed supra, with respect to each of the argued claims.
Appellants’ argument, as detailed supra, repeatedly restates
elements of the claim language and simply argues that the
elements are missing from the reference. However, Appellants
do not present any arguments to explain why the Examiner’s
explicit fact finding is in error. . . . In contrast, the Examiner
findings address each claim limitation raised on appeal by
Appellants and also these findings reference specific teachings
in [the cited reference] as showing these claim limitations.
[In view of] Appellants’ [unsupported] arguments . . .
and the Examiner’s specific and detailed findings, we reach a
conclusion that Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s [rejection of the claims].

Ex parte Belinne, Appeal No. 2009-004693, decided August 10, 2009,
(BPAI) (informative). Available at:
www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf.
ANALYSIS
From our review of the administrative record, we find that the
Examiner presents his conclusions of unpatentability on pages 4 through 12
5
Appeal 2009-006005
Application 10/849,469

of the Examiner’s Answer. In opposition, Appellants present a number of
arguments.

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1 to 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)

Appellants argue: “Shappir does not have any facility [that] performs
the claimed conversion which is located within and executed by said
legacy database management system as claimed. Clearly, Shappir does
not meet this limitation, because it requires a separate and independent
server to provide the necessary interface.” (Brief 21, bottom to 22, top).
In reply, the Examiner points out in the Answer that Shappir teaches a
legacy system accessed via a task server using a high-level Application
Programming Interface (API) (Ans. 16, middle).
In this case, we agree with the Examiner. We find that Appellants
have invented an apparatus and method for accessing a legacy database
management system (FF#1). A conversion facility translates a user request
made in a standardized object-based command language into a non-
standardized, legacy system language (id.). Similarly, we find that the
Shappir reference teaches a method and system for accessing a legacy
system (Appellants’ claimed “legacy data base management system”)
(FF#2). Shappir further teaches a task server and a low-level application
programming interface (collectively, Appellants’ claimed “conversion
facility”) that translate a request (Appellants’ claimed “user request”) from a
user of a standardized application programming interface into commands a
legacy system recognizes (id.). We read Shappir’s task server and low-level
6
Appeal 2009-006005
Application 10/849,469

application programming interface (collectively, the claimed “conversion
facility”) as being located “within” Shappir’s legacy system. We note that
nowhere in the Specification have Appellants specifically defined what is
required to be “within” the claimed “legacy data base management system.”
That is, exemplary claim 1 simply does not place any limitation on what the
claim term “within” is to be, to represent, or to mean, with respect to a
system. In view of our finding that Shappir’s task server and the low-level
API (Appellants’ claimed “conversion facility”) are “within” (as recited in
claim 1) Shappir’s legacy system, Appellants’ claim limitation “a conversion
facility located within … said legacy data base management system” is met.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 3 recites, in relevant part, “wherein said conversion
facility further comprises a stored procedure.”
Regarding claim 3, Appellants’ argue: “Shappir permits the legacy
database management system to be completely unmodified. However,
Shappir requires another server in which to store the logic for and execute
the emulation logic and does not have the advantages of the stored procedure
approach.” (Brief 21, top).
In reply, the Examiner states in the Answer that Shappir’s “stored
procedure” (¶ [0026]) equates with Appellants’ “stored procedure,” of claim
3 (Ans. 15, bottom).
First, we find unconvincing Appellants’ argument that Shappir’s
legacy system is “unmodified,” because the argument is not commensurate
with the scope of claim 3 (incorporating claim 1). Second, we find
unpersuasive Appellants’ argument that “Shappir requires another server to
store logic” because claim 3 does not limit the claimed “conversion facility”
7
Appeal 2009-006005
Application 10/849,469

(claim 1) from having another server to store logic, as argued. Lastly,
whether Shappir teaches the “advantages of the stored procedure approach”
is not persuasive since Appellants have chosen not to recite structure
explicitly supporting those “advantages of the stored procedure approach,”
as argued, in the claim language. Accordingly, we find no error in the
rejection of claim 3.
Above, we selected claim 1 as representative of the claims on appeal.
Appellants make no separate arguments for claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19,
and 20 (Brief 22, bottom to 30, middle). Therefore, these claims fall with
claim 1 (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
In lieu of argumentation for claims 3, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17,
Appellants have merely stated that Shappir does not have the relevant claim
limitations. (See Brief 23, top to 29, middle.) However, this is not a
persuasive form of argumentation since Appellants fail to show how the
claim limitations differ from the specific prior art citations the Examiner has
made. (See Ex parte Belinne, cited above).
Regarding claims 6, 16, and 21, Appellants make substantially similar
arguments for the claimed “conversion facility,” relying upon the argument
that Shappir’s legacy system does not include the task server 200 or other
elements of Shappir. (See Brief 24, middle to bottom; 28 bottom to 29, top;
30, middle to 31, top.) These arguments are unpersuasive for the same
reasons presented above regarding claim 1. (See supra.) Accordingly, we
find no error regarding claims 6, 16, and 21.
Claim 11 recites, in relevant part, a “means for offering legacy data
base management services involving access to at least one data base having
a non-standard scripted command language.”
8
Appeal 2009-006005
Application 10/849,469

Appellants contend: “[T]ask server 50 clearly does not disclose the
claimed non-standard scripted command language.” (Brief 26, bottom).
We note that independent claim 11 recites substantially similar
language as claim 1. Above, we found that Shappir’s task server 200 (which
contains server 50) and low-level application programming interface
(collectively, the claimed “conversion facility”) are “within” Shappir’s
legacy system. We note that Shappir’s task server 200 contains server 50.
We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
Shappir’s task server 200 (which contains server 50) and low-level
application programming interface as being the same as a “means for
offering legacy data base management services involving access to at least
one data base having a non-standard scripted command language,” as recited
in claim 11. A skilled artisan would have interpreted a legacy system as one
employing “a non-standard scripted command language,” as claimed.
Accordingly, we find no error in the rejection of claim 11.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 through 21.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 21.

9
Appeal 2009-006005
Application 10/849,469

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).

AFFIRMED

peb

UNISYS CORPORATION
UNISYS WAY
MAIL STATION E8-114
BLUE BELL, PA 19424
10