Ex Parte Klein et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

11011049 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 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.
11/011,049 12/15/2004 Markus Klein 07781.0213-00 9543
22852 7590 03/28/2012
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
GEIB, BENJAMIN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2012 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 MARKUS KLEIN, KAI-MICHAEL ROESNER, and
KARL WAGNER
____________________

Appeal 2010-000848
Application 11/011,049
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000848
Application 11/011,049

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a data processing
system that receives a first data object having a plurality of first data fields
from application programs. When the first data object is received, the data
processing system generates a second data object which initially is empty
and has a number of data fields with unique field names. Data is transferred
from data fields of the first data object to data fields of the second data
object having identical field names. A sub-set of the data fields of the
second data object is identified and data that is transferred to data fields of
the sub-set is used to select a data processing function. The data that is
transferred to the second data object is evaluated and a resulting value is
returned to the application program. (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations italicized:
1. A data processing system comprising:

means for receiving a first data object from an application
program, the first data object having a plurality of first data
fields, the first data fields having unique field names;

Appeal 2010-000848
Application 11/011,049

3
means for providing a second data object in response to receipt
of the first data object, the second data object having a plurality
of second data fields, the second data fields having one of the
unique field names;

means for storing the unique field names of the second data
object and for defining a sub-set of the second data fields,
wherein the sub-set is defined in accordance with predefined
identification data comprising a number of the field names of
the second data fields;

means for storing a plurality of data processing functions;

means for transferring data from the first data fields to the
second data fields having identical field names;

means for selecting one of the plurality of data processing
functions on the basis of the data that has been transferred to
the sub-set of the second data fields; and

means for executing a selected one of the data processing
functions using the data of the second data object as input and
using an output of the selected data processing function to
provide a return value for the application program.

Prior Art
Allard US 5,991,802 Nov. 23, 1999

Rejections
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Allard.

Appeal 2010-000848
Application 11/011,049

4
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1-18. (See App.
Br.13-15).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1-18
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Allard because
Allard does not describe a data processing system that includes means for
“storing a plurality of data processing functions” and “selecting one of the
plurality of data processing functions on the basis of the data that has been
transferred to the sub-set of the second data fields” as recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 13-15). Specifically, Appellants argue even if “checkbooks” were
considered to be a “data processing function,” the Examiner has not shown
Allard describes storing a plurality of the data processing function (App. Br.
13-14). According to Appellants, Allard discloses only a single function and
the Examiner’s inherency argument – that because there is a function
parameter, there must be more than one function – has not been supported
by any evidence that mere use of function parameters would constitute a
plurality of data processing functions (Reply Br. 2-3).
Appeal 2010-000848
Application 11/011,049

5
Additionally, Appellants contend element 1003 is formed from
element 1002 and therefore, the parameter “func.checkbooks” cannot be
passed from element 1003, the alleged second data object, to element 1002,
the alleged subset of the second data object (App. Br. 14). Appellants argue
invoking a function based on the name specified in a parameter is not
“selecting” a function from “a plurality of data processing functions”
(Reply Br. 3-4).

Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Allard discloses means for
(i) “storing a plurality of data processing functions” and (ii) “selecting one
of the plurality of data processing functions on the basis of the data that has
been transferred to the sub-set of the second data fields” as recited in claim
1?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Specifically, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument that only one parameter is included in
the Shadow HTTP request (Reply Br. 2) as Allard discloses “the system
processes the parameters of the shadow HTTP request” (col. 7, ll. 63-65; see
also Fig. 9, element 907). Allard then continues “[i]n this example, the only
parameter is the parameter ‘func.checkbooks’” (col. 7, ll. 65-66); however,
we find from the preceding sentence and the description of Figures 9 and 10
that a plurality of data processing functions are stored in the system of
Allard (italic emphasis ours). Specifically, Allard describes a plurality of
parameters and a plurality of functions as evidenced by listing these features
in the plural in elements Parameters 907 and Functions 908 of Fig. 9.
Appeal 2010-000848
Application 11/011,049

6
We also find that on the basis of the data that has been transferred to
the sub-set of the second data fields, that one of the data processing
functions is selected, i.e. based on the template which adds the parameter
%func.checkbooks% to the HTTP request (col. 7, ll. 47-49 and 52-55; Fig.
10). Based on this parameter, the function “checkbooks” is selected (col. 7,
l. 65 – col. 8, l. 1). Therefore, Allard discloses “selecting one of the plurality
of data processing functions on the basis of the data that has been transferred
to the sub-set of the second data fields” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
finding Allard discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited and not separately argued independent claims 6 and
11. No separate arguments of patentability were set forth for dependent
claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-18 and thus, these claims fall with representative
claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Allard.

DECISION

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Allard is 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) (2010).

Appeal 2010-000848
Application 11/011,049

7
AFFIRMED

tsj