Ex Parte Neuneier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2013

11763008 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 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.
11/763,008 06/14/2007 INV001Ralph NEUNEIER 1454.1850 2857
21171 7590 03/19/2013
STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
FAN, SHIOW-JY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2013 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 RALPH NEUNEIER and MICHAL SKUBACZ

Appeal 2011-0023321
Application 11/763,008
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID M. KOHUT and BRYAN F. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The Real Party in Interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. (App. Br. 3.) An
oral hearing was held in this appeal on March 14, 2013.
Appeal 2011-002332
Application 11/763,008

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-21. Claims 3 and 4 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a distributed communication system for remotely
analyzing locally processed data. In particular, upon receiving at a web
system (A/B) web content data from a user browser (BR1/BR2), an
acquisition unit (TE1/TE2) produces converted information in a predefined
data structure, which it forwards to a remotely located common analysis unit
(AS) to thereby analyze the converted information according to predefined
criteria. (Fig. 1, [0008].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A communication system for processing data,
comprising:
a plurality of sub-systems, a respective sub-system
processing data according to a logic system specific to the
respective sub-system, at least some of the sub-systems
respectively including at least one acquisition unit acquiring
information relating to processed data of the respective sUb-
system and producing converted information in a predefined
data structure in at least some of the sub-systems; and
a common analysis unit, connected to the acquisition
units, receiving, during operation of the communication system,
the converted information from the acquisition units relating to
Appeal 2011-002332
Application 11/763,008

3
the processed data in the predefined data structure and
analyzing the converted information in relation to predefined
criteria, wherein
the communication system provides web contents for a
plurality of users,
the plurality of sub-systems are web systems and a
respective web system processes web contents according to a
logic system specific to the respective web system and supplies
the web contents to the users,
the at least one acquisition unit of at least some of the
web systems acquires information that is related to web
contents of the respective web system retrieved by the users and
produces the converted information in the predefined data
structure, and
the at least one acquisition unit acquires the information
relating to the web contents retrieved by the users at least
partially via communication of the respective web system with
web browsers of the users.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Leaf US 5,754,772 May 19, 1998
Reisman US 2003/0229900 A1 Dec. 11, 2003
Mirabella US 2004/0167859 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:

1. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Leaf.
2. Claims 8-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Leaf and Reisman.
Appeal 2011-002332
Application 11/763,008

4
3. Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Leaf, Reisman, and
Mirabella.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 10-14, and the Reply Brief, pages 4-8.
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in finding
that Leaf describes a plurality of subsystems, each processing web contents
according to a logic system specific thereto, as recited in claim 1?

Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Leaf
describes the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 11, 12,
Reply Br. 4-7.) In particular, Appellants argue that Leaf discloses only a
single web server system having a transaction gateway client that can start
numerous client instances to convert received data between a plurality of
browsers and a distributed processing system. However, Appellants submit
that the disclosed single web server including the plurality of client instances
is not a plurality of subsystems, nor does each of the disclosed instances
processes data each according a logic system specific thereto. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Leaf’s disclosure of a plurality of
transaction client gateway instances contained in a web server that, upon
receiving URLs from a plurality of web browsers, translate the URLs into
Appeal 2011-002332
Application 11/763,008

5
view buffers that are forwarded to a distributed transaction processing
system describes the disputed limitations. (Ans. 4, 16-17.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation regarding claim 1. Leaf discloses a
webserver system (50) including a web server (18) that forwards to a
Transaction Gateway Client (TGC- 40) URL character strings received from
plurality of web browsers (10-16). (Col. 5, ll. 51-56.) In particular, the
TGC includes a plurality of instances, wherein each of the instances
independently processes a separate URL character string to convert the URL
into a corresponding view buffer. (Col. 6, ll. 26-42.) Further, each of the
TGC instances creates an instance of a Name Pipe to communicate with a
distributed transaction processing system to which the TGC instance
forwards the URL translated into the View Buffer. (Col. 6, ll. 43-52.) We
therefore find that because each of the disclosed TGC instances
independently processes a received URL to translate it into a buffer view,
and the TGC instance subsequently establishes a separate communication
path with the transaction communication system to which it forwards the
translated buffer view, the TGC instance describes a subsystem having a
requisite logic specific thereto. Accordingly, we find Leaf’s disclosure of a
plurality of TGC instances describes the plurality of sub-systems as recited
in the disputed limitations. It follows that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 1 over Leaf.
Regarding claims 2, and 5-21, Appellants reiterate substantially the
same arguments submitted for patentablity of claim 1 above. (App. Br. 12-
Appeal 2011-002332
Application 11/763,008

6
14.) As discussed above, these arguments are not persuasive. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.37(c)(1)(vii). Further, while Appellants raised additional arguments for
patentability of the cited claims, we find that the Examiner has rebutted in
the Answer each and every one of those arguments by a preponderance of
the evidence. (Ans. 17-18.) Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings
and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Consequently, we have found no error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims
2, and 5-21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, and
5-21 as set forth above.
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

ke