Ex Parte Patel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2013

10947858 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RIKIN S. PATEL
____________

Appeal 2011-005350
Application 10/947,858
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, STEPHEN C. SIU, and GLENN J. PERRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to monitoring response time of
a web service provider. See Abstract.
Appellant describes the invention at Specification 10-13 with respect
to Application Figure 2, reproduced below.
Appeal 2011-005350
Application 10/947,858

2

Application Figure 2 depicts a block diagram
illustrating an application response time
monitoring service for a web service

Business Web Service Consumer (Consumer) (202) calls for a web
service to be provided by a Web Service Provider (208) via a proxy 206.
The proxy forwards the call for web service to the Web Service Provider and
also invokes the monitoring of response time of that Web Service Provider
by using a response time monitoring (RTM) Web Service. The proxy
invokes the RTM independently of any particular web service provider by
inserting a unique ID into its call to the web service provider. The proxy
invokes the RTM for both “inbound” transactions to the web service
provider and “outbound” transactions from the web service provider. The
invoking of the RTM is signified in Application Fig. 2 by the down arrow
from proxy 206 to RTM 216. The RTM determines response time for a
Appeal 2011-005350
Application 10/947,858

3

particular ID by determining the difference between outbound and inbound
times. Id. at 11.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for monitoring the response time for a web
service provider, the method comprising:
receiving a web service inbound transaction at a proxy;
exiting from calls for inbound transactions to invoke a
response time monitoring service from the proxy in response to
the inbound transaction reception and providing the response
time monitoring service with a unique transaction identifier for
the inbound transaction;
invoking on the web service provider a web service
requested by the inbound transaction;
receiving an outbound transaction in response to the
requested web service from the web service provider at the
proxy;
invoking the response time monitoring service from the
proxy in response to the outbound transaction reception and
providing the unique transaction identifier to the response time
monitoring service;
determining a time for the inbound transaction and for
the outbound transaction corresponding to the same unique
transaction identifier;
setting a response time as the difference in times between
a time for the outbound transaction and a time for the inbound
transaction.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”), Foody et al.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0177141 A1 (Sep. 9, 2004)
Appeal 2011-005350
Application 10/947,858

4

(“Foody”), and Messick et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2004/0122938 A1 (Jun. 24, 2004) (“Messick”). Ans. 4-7.1
II. DISCUSSION
Claim 1
The AAPA, described by Application Fig. 1, reproduced below, and
related specification text, describes a business web service consumer (102)
invoking, through a web service proxy (106), a web service provided by a
web service provider 108.

Application Figure 1 (AAPA) depicts a block diagram
illustrating a high level overview of an application monitoring process

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September
15, 2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 2, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed February 1, 2011 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-005350
Application 10/947,858

5

A web service provider reports its transactions to an ARM server
(116) which provides data to a log (118) of transactions. A monitoring tool
(120) determines whether response time goals have been met. App. Br.
10-11. According to Appellant, the AAPA arrangement works satisfactorily
for a single web service because the monitoring data is prompted by that
web service provider. App. Br. 11.
Appellant notes that whereas the AAPA invokes response time
monitoring only in response to an “inbound” transaction, the claimed
invention invokes response time monitoring also in response to an
“outbound transaction.” App. Br. 12.
Foody teaches the use of client and server interceptors (e.g. 405-1 and
405-3 in Foody Fig. 4) that respond to an examine node (450 in Foody Fig.
1) to track information flow rates from node to node through a network. As
we understand the Examiner’s position, the Foody interceptors act as a
proxy facilitating monitoring of data on the network.
Appellant disagrees that AAPA, Foody, and Messick render obvious
the claims at issue. App. Br. 12. In particular, Appellant argues that
Foody’s interceptor is located at the service provider and not at a proxy. Id.
We agree. Even though Foody may monitor network traffic in both
directions, the case has not been made that it suggests using a proxy, such as
claimed, that invokes a monitoring service in response to inbound and
outbound transactions between that proxy and various web services. Id.
The Foody interceptors (see Foody Fig. 4) are selectively coupled to a
software element to intercept inbound and outbound control flow. They do
not act as a proxy acts per claim 1 including adding a unique ID, forwarding
Appeal 2011-005350
Application 10/947,858

6

a call to a web service and invoking monitoring on inbound and outbound
transactions.
We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent
claims.
Independent Claims 6 and 11 and their Dependent Claims
For the same reasons we do not sustain the rejections of independent
claims 6 and 11 which have similar requirements to those of claim 1
discussed above. The dependent claims were not separately argued.

Independent Claim 16 and its Dependent Claims
Claim 16 is framed as a “web service system.” It is reproduced
below.
16. A web service system, comprising:
a web service proxy server coupled to a web service
provider along a first logical path and coupled to a web service
consumer; and
a response time monitoring web service coupled to the
web service proxy server along a second logical path parallel to
the first logical path;
wherein the web service proxy server receives a web
service inbound transaction from the web service consumer,
associates a unique transaction identifier with the inbound
transaction, invokes the response time monitoring web service
along the second logical path, and invokes a web service from
the web service provider requested by the web service inbound
transaction along the first logical path;
wherein the web service proxy server receives a web
service outbound transaction in response to the web service
inbound transaction and corresponding to the unique transaction
identifier from the web service provider along the first logical
path, invokes the response time monitoring web service along
the second logical path and in response to the web service
Appeal 2011-005350
Application 10/947,858

7

outbound transaction; and transmits the web service outbound
transaction to the web service consumer;
wherein the response time monitoring web service
determines a response time for the web service transaction
based upon a time associated with the proxy server receiving
the web service inbound transaction and the time associated
with the proxy server receiving the web service outbound
transaction with the corresponding unique transaction identifier;
and
wherein the web service provider provides a web service
to the web service consumer.

As with the other independent claims, claim 16 requires a proxy that invokes
the response time monitoring. Claim 16 is separately argued (App. Br. 13-
15) in that claim 16 specifically requires separate logical paths for
transactions between the proxy and the web service and for transactions
between the proxy and the response time monitoring. Although we do not
regard the separate logical paths as a patentable distinction, given our
analysis above with respect to the other independent claims, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 16 and its dependent claims 17 and 18.

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-19.
It is therefore ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-19 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc