Ex Parte Patel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2012

10729607 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RIKIN S. PATEL
____________

Appeal 2010-005713
Application 10/729,607
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005713
Application 10/729,607
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner finally rejected claims 2-12 and 15-45. Claims
1, 13, and 14 were canceled. Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
This invention relates to system and method for managing faults in a
service-oriented architecture. (Spec. 1). Claim 45, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
45. A system for managing faults in a web services architecture
comprising:
a system interface operable to receive a service request in
a web services format, the system interface further operable to
translate the service request into a non-web service format;
a service implementation operable to fulfill the service
request, generate a fault report, and persist the fault, the
persistence comprising storing the fault report in a persistent
store, wherein generating a fault report comprises detecting a
fault during the fulfillment of the service request, and persisting
the fault comprises attaching a unique identifier to the fault
report;
a fault service implementation operable to retrieve the
fault report from the persistent store and translate the fault
report into a web service format; and
a fault service interface operable to receive fault service
requests and transmit a fault service response.
(Disputed limitations emphasized).

Appeal 2010-005713
Application 10/729,607
3
REJECTION
Claims 2-12 and 15-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hsu (U.S. Patent No. 7,146,544
B2) and Catania (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0015472
A1).
ANALYSIS
CLAIM 45
A.
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
"a system interface operable to receive a service request in a web services
format, the system interface further operable to translate the service request
into a non-web service format," within the meaning of claim 45 and the
commensurate language of claims 2, 11, and 26?
The Examiner finds:
[I]t is clear that Catania [paragraph [0056]] expressly discloses
RPC Handlers for interpreting and mapping ('translating') a
request message in RPC format 'to and from' different 'native
programming types' or languages, such as the Java
programming language (which is a native programming
language and thus a 'non-web' service language / format).
Catania thus expressly teaches and discloses the argued feature
of 'translating a service request into a 'non-web service
format', . . .
(Ans. 23).
Appellant responds:
The Examiner's reliance on ¶ [0056] of Catania (see
Examiner's Answer at 23) also does not support the rejection.
Paragraph [0056] of Catania refers to an RPC handler 118 that
maps messages to native programming types. However, there
Appeal 2010-005713
Application 10/729,607
4
is no hint that such RPC handlers are used to translate between
BPEL messages and messages of a non-web service format.
(Reply Br. 6).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive because the Examiner's finding
relying on paragraph [0056] of Catania upon does not involve translating
BPEL messages. (Ans. 22-24). Instead, the Examiner finds that the RPC
handler maps (translates) RPC messages (web services format) into "various
native programmatic types used by the underlying resources" (non-web
services format). (Ans. 22-23; Catania ¶ [0056]). Appellant does not rebut
this finding. The Examiner provided two alternative findings in (a) the
Answer pages 16-21 (BPEL) relying on Catania paragraphs [0068], [0070]-
[0079], and (b) the Answer pages 22-24 (RPC handler), Catania paragraph
[0056]. Appellant's argument regarding BPEL messages in finding (a) does
not rebut the Examiner's finding (b) which would have taught or suggested
the limitation at issue. Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error.

B.
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
"persisting the fault comprises attaching a unique identifier to the fault
report," within the meaning of claim 45?
Appellant argues that the combination of references would not have
taught or suggested a service implementation operable to "persist the fault ...
wherein persisting the fault comprises attaching a unique identifier to the
Appeal 2010-005713
Application 10/729,607
5
fault report" because "[t]here is no indication that either of [Hsu's] error
codes or the error categories are unique to an error instance." (App. Br. 20).
The Examiner responds:
Catania expressly discloses in one embodiment, that "if there is
an 'error' in a request or with the processing of a request, a
SOAP 'fault message' is returned instead of the response. A
SOAP Fault Message' includes a Fault Code, a Fault String, a
Fault Actor, and an Error Detail'. Catania also expressly
discloses an exemplary 'fault message' reflecting an error in a
client request, including the fault 'code' or 'string' uniquely
identifying the detected error or exception [Catania: 0048-0051,
0059-0060 & 0066]. The argued feature of a service
implementation operable to "persist the fault...wherein
persisting the fault comprises attaching a unique identifier to
the fault report" is thus expressly disclosed by at least Catania,
and the Office accordingly maintains its rejection of the claim
for at least the reasons provided above.
(Ans. 26).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive because Appellant fails to
rebut the Examiner's findings above that Catania's fault code or string
uniquely identifies the detected error or exception. (Ans. 26). Thus, on this
record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.

C.
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
"translate the fault report into a web service format," within the meaning of
claim 45?
The Examiner finds:
Catania expressly discloses that the 'messages exchanged' in
web services are "typically XML messages formatted in
Appeal 2010-005713
Application 10/729,607
6
accordance with SOAP specification", which can be used to
invoke web services, and that 'SOAP messages' are one type of
'web services' language / format, in accordance with Applicant's
own definition or description for a 'web service' language /
format [Catania: 0005-0009]. The Office notes that at least this
much is acknowledged by Applicant. Accordingly, it is clear
that the request / response 'messages' and/or fault notification /
report 'messages' provided to the one or more managers of
Catania's or Hsu's invention are necessarily exchanged in a 'web
service' language / format (i.e, SOAP, HTTP etc.). Further, it
has been previously established by the Office that at least
Catania expressly discloses the feature of "translating a request
into a non-web service format", and that 'conversion'
(translation) of a message from a 'non-web service' to a 'web
service' language / format - and vice versa - using 'serialization /
deserialization' of data objects is well-known in the art in view
of the [evidentiary] / supplemental prior art to Russell et al.
Accordingly, at least Catania or what is well-known in the art
expressly teaches the above argued feature of "translating the
fault report into a web service format" and the Office maintains
its rejection of the claim for at least these reasons.
(Ans. 28-29).
Appellant's Appeal Brief and Reply Brief do not address and rebut the
Examiner's findings that Catania's messages (fault reports) from the priority
systems (non-web services format; ¶ [0056]) are translated and transmitted
in SOAP format (Web service format). (Ans. 28-29). The Examiner's
findings would have taught or suggested the limitation at issue. (Ans. 28-
29). Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.

Appeal 2010-005713
Application 10/729,607
7
D.
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in combining the cited
references relied upon in the rejection of claim 45?
Appellant argues that the combination of Catania and Hsu "would not
include receiving a service request in a web service language and then
translating the service request into a non-web service language." (App.
Br. 28). Appellant argues this is because Catania's background of the
invention section paragraphs [0008]-[0009] requires that the "service
requestor obtain a copy of the WSDL file from the server and format the
request in the proper SOAP request format prior to it being sent." (App.
Br. 27). Appellant also argues any modification of Catania would change
Catania's principle of operation. (App. Br. 28).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner does
not rely upon Catania's paragraphs [0008]-[0009] "to translate the service
request into a non-web service format." (Ans. 22-23; See section A above).
Instead, the Examiner relies on Catania's RPC handlers. (Ans. 22-23;
Catania ¶ [0056]). Furthermore, Appellant's Reply Brief does not rebut the
Examiner's proffered motivation for combination in the Examiner's Answer
pages 32-33. Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding
the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate conclusion of
obviousness.
For the reasons given above in sections A-D, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 45.

Appeal 2010-005713
Application 10/729,607
8
REMAINING CLAIMS
Appellant argues that independent claims 2, 11, and 26 are patentable
for essentially the same reasons as argued regarding claim 45 as discussed in
Sections A and D above. (App. Br. 24). However, we are not persuaded by
Appellant's arguments for the reasons discussed above in Sections A and D.
Appellant further argues claims 3-5, 12, 15-20, 23, 25, 27-38, and 41-
44, which depend from independent claims 2, 11, and 26, are patentable by
virtue of their dependency. (App. Br. 24). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 3-5, 11, 12, 15-20, 23, 25, 26, 27-38, and
41-44.
Appellant argues that claims 6, 21-22, 39, and 40 are patentable for
essentially the reasons argued in section B above. (App. Br. 24). For the
reasons given above in section B, we are not persuaded by Appellant's
arguments. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 6, 21-
22, 39, and 40.
Appellant argues that Claim 24 is patentable for essentially the
reasons argued regarding claim 45 in section C above. (App. Br. 25-26).
However, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments for the reasons
discussed above in section C and for the reasons the Examiner provided in
the Answer on pages 31-32. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejections
of claim 24.
Appellant does not present arguments for claims 7-9 in the Appeal
Brief. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 7-9. (Ans.
7-8).

Appeal 2010-005713
Application 10/729,607
9
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-12 and 15-45 under
§ 103.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tkl