Ex Parte Fontes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2013

10973121 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2013)

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.
10/973,121 10/26/2004 Stephen M. Fontes RSW920040172US1 (168) 5908
46320 7590 11/29/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
RECEK, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN M. FONTES, RENGAN SUNDARARAMAN, and
LEIGH A. WILLIAMSON
____________

Appeal 2011-002264
Application 10/973,121
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JEFFREY S. SMITH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2011-002264
Application 10/973,121

2
Appellants’ Request for Rehearing (filed November 4, 2013) contends
that we erred in our Decision on Appeal entered September 3, 2013
(“Decision”), in which we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject claims
1-16.

DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites “the routing configuration specifies individual
locations of the modules of the application among the plurality of
application servers.” Appellants contend that the Board erred in finding the
routing configuration recited in claim 1 is taught by the registry information
of Cable. Req. 2. According to Appellants, the registry information does
not specify individual locations of the modules of an application among a
plurality of application servers, but rather refers to information of the
computer system to which the application component will be deployed.
Req. 3-4.
We have reconsidered our Decision, in light of Appellants’ comments,
and we find Appellants have not identified any points misapprehended or
overlooked by the Board in our Decision.
Paragraphs 41 and 70 of Cable teach that when an application
component is moved to an application server computer, the registry
information is updated to enable the computer system to invoke the
application component. The computer system that invokes the application
discussed in these paragraphs can be the web server computer 104 or the
deployment computer system 100 as shown in Figure 4 and discussed in
paragraphs 70 and 71. Thus, as set forth in our Decision, we agree with the
Examiner that the registry information “specifies individual locations of the
Appeal 2011-002264
Application 10/973,121

3
modules of the application among the plurality of applications servers”
within the meaning of claim 1 (Decision 3-4).
Appellants add that the routing configuration recited in claim 1 resides
on the content server rather than the application servers as taught by Cable.
Req. 4. However, claim 1 does not expressly recite that the routing
configuration resides on the content server. Appellants’ contention is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. Additionally, Cable teaches that
the registry information can reside on the web server computer 104, which
teaches routing configuration residing on the content server.

DECISION
We have granted Appellants’ request to the extent that we have
reconsidered our Decision, but we deny the request with respect to making
any changes therein.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

ke