Ex Parte Godoy et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 15, 2012

10042403 (B.P.A.I. May. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/042,403 01/09/2002 Glenn C. Godoy END920010097US1 9024
7590 05/16/2012
John R. Pivnichny, Ph.D.
IBM Corporation, N50/040-4
1701 North Street
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2012 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 GLENN C. GODOY, MARK ANTHONY MUSA, and
AMY J. SNAVELY
____________________

Appeal 2009-013023
Application 10/042,403
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and DAVID M.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013023
Application 10/042,403

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method of updating business control data, comprising the
steps of:
developing a model of business rules spanning a plurality of
applications said model having a data structure including a
dissemination structure;
building said rules into a common database using a common
data administration application;
entering business control data into said common database using
said common data administration application; and
disseminating to said plurality of applications, respective
portions of said business control data according to said dissemination
structure.

Rejections on Appeal 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Iyengar (US 6,018,627) and
Talatik (US 5,873,094).
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Iyengar, Talatik, and Souder
(US 5,724,556).

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-9. Except for our ultimate
decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2009-013023
Application 10/042,403

3
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because:
Talatik does not describe disseminating respective
portions of business control data to a plurality of applications.
Talatik describes propagating a change of instant for an object
of the instant. Furthermore, there is no indication in Talatik of
propagating his change of instant for an object of the instant to
a plurality of applications.
(App. Br. 5).
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because
the references fail to teach or suggest the claim limitations at issue?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We agree with (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see particularly
Ans. 7-9). We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-9 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-9 are not patentable.

Appeal 2009-013023
Application 10/042,403

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-9 are affirmed.

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
tj