Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2013

09981444 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte GRAHAM TAYLOR, STEPHEN T. GAITO, NIGEL R. DAVIS,
and JONATHAN M. DURRANT
________________

Appeal 2013-003220
Application 09/981,444
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2013-003220
Application 09/981,444

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 9, 18, 20, and 22. Claims 10 – 17, 19, 21, and 23 – 26
are canceled. App. Br. 10 – 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to an adaptive software interface which is able
to mediate between different versions of interface definitions. See Spec. 1, ll.
7 – 8.
Exemplary Claim (Emphases Added)
1. A method comprising:
generating structured meta-data providing at least one
semantic information element describing a characteristic of an
interface capability of each of a first entity and at least one
other entity, said entities seeking to communicate across a
network, wherein an interface of the first entity has at least one
differing characteristic from an interface of the second entity;
collating the at least one semantic information elements
of said first entity with the corresponding at least one semantic
information elements of said at least one other entity;
at run-time, analysing the at least one pair of said
collated semantic information elements to establish the extent
to which the interface capabilities of said entities are
compatible; and
automatically generating in accordance with said
established compatibility an adaptive software interface for
said entities, such that the entities are able to communicate
Appeal 2013-003220
Application 09/981,444

3
despite the fact that the interface capabilities of the entities are
different.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 9, 18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sciacca (US 6,760,761 B1; Jul. 6, 2004;
filed Mar. 27, 2000) and Kuznetsov (US 6,772,413 B2; Aug. 3, 2004; filed
Dec. 8, 2000). Ans. 5 – 9.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sciacca and
Kuznetsov teaches or suggests (1) “generating structured meta-data . . .
describing a characteristic of an interface capability of each of a first entity
and at least one other entity,” (2) “collating the at least one semantic
information elements of said first entity with the corresponding at least one
semantic information elements of said at least one other entity,” and (3) “at
run-time, analysing the at least one pair of said collated semantic
information elements to establish the extent to which the interface
capabilities of said entities are compatible; and automatically generating in
accordance with said established compatibility an adaptive software
interface for said entities,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as being unpatentable over Sciacca,
which is directed to systems and methods for standardizing network devices,
and Kuznetsov, which is directed to a method and apparatus of data
exchange using a runtime code generator and translator. See Ans. 5 – 6. In
rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Sciacca teaches or suggests
Appeal 2013-003220
Application 09/981,444

4
“generating structured meta-data . . . describing a characteristic of an
interface capability of each of a first entity and at least one other entity.” See
id. at 5 (citing Sciacca col. 2, ll. 28 – 38 and col. 5, ll. 3 – 15). In particular,
the Examiner finds that Sciacca, by teaching meta-data storage, teaches or
suggests generating structured meta-data. See Ans. 10 (citing Sciacca col. 5,
ll. 3 – 5); see also Sciacca col. 5, ll. 5 – 6 (“database 420 may store meta-
data that describes the semantics of the kinds of configuration data in the
database”). The Examiner finds that, because data stored in configuration
database 420 corresponds “to one or more managed devices 130,” Sciacca
teaches or suggests meta-data of a first entity (a first managed device) and at
least one other entity (a second managed device). See Ans. 10 (citing
Sciacca col. 5, ll. 3 – 4); see also Ans. 5 (“[t]he devices have structured
meta-data associated with them” (emphasis added)). The Examiner also
finds that by teaching that “[t]he meta-data describes the semantics of the
kinds of configuration data in the database,” Sciacca teaches or suggests
meta-data describing a characteristic of an interface capability of the entities.
See Ans. 10 (citing Sciacca col. 5, ll. 9 – 12).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Sciacca teaches an
engine that validates inputs from external entities such as “customers,
configuration novices and experts.” See App. Br. 5. Appellants argue that
“[i]t is not understood, nor is it explained what a ‘semantic information
element describing a characteristic of an interface capability of’ a human is
meant to be.” Id. at 6. However, Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to
the Examiner’s rejection. As discussed above, the Examiner identifies first
and second managed devices in Sciacca as teaching or suggesting a first
entity and at least one other entity. See Ans. 5 and 10. Appellants’ arguments
Appeal 2013-003220
Application 09/981,444

5
do not persuasively identify error in the Examiner’s rejection with respect to
this disputed claim recitation. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that
the first and second managed devices in Sciacca teach or suggest a first
entity and at least one other entity. See id. at 5. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Sciacca teaches or suggests “generating structured meta-data
. . . describing a characteristic of an interface capability of each of a first
entity and at least one other entity,” as recited in claim 1. See id.
The Examiner further finds that Sciacca teaches or suggests “collating
the at least one semantic information elements of said first entity with the
corresponding at least one semantic information elements of said at least one
other entity,” as recited in claim 1. See id. at 5 – 6 (citing Sciacca col. 5, ll. 3
– 15). In particular, the Examiner finds that the claimed collating step, given
a reasonably broad interpretation in light of the Specification, encompasses
collecting and combining the semantic information elements in a database
(i.e., storing the elements in a database). See Ans. 11.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the cited passages of
Sciacca “do not disclose . . . collating corresponding metadata describing the
interface capability of both devices” representing a first entity and at least
one other entity. See App. Br. 6. However, Sciacca not only teaches storing
“meta-data that describes the semantics of the kinds of configuration data in
the database,” Sciacca col. 5, ll. 5 – 6, but also teaches that the configuration
data corresponds “to one or more managed devices,” Sciacca col. 5, l. 4
(emphasis added). Because the configuration data can correspond to multiple
managed devices, the configuration data, and thus semantic information for
the configuration data, corresponds to multiple devices (i.e., a first entity and
at least one other entity). We agree with the Examiner that this
Appeal 2013-003220
Application 09/981,444

6
correspondence of configuration data and semantic information to multiple
managed devices teaches or suggests semantic information elements of a
first entity (a first device) and corresponding semantic information elements
of at least one other entity (a second device). See Ans. 11. Moreover, we
agree with the Examiner that, by teaching the storage of semantic
information in a database, Sciacca teaches or suggests collating the semantic
information. See id. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Sciacca
teaches or suggests “collating the at least one semantic information elements
of said first entity with the corresponding at least one semantic information
elements of said at least one other entity,” as recited in claim 1. See id. at 5 –
6.
The Examiner also finds that Kuznetsov teaches or suggests “at run-
time, analysing the at least one pair of said collated semantic information
elements to establish the extent to which the interface capabilities of said
entities are compatible; and automatically generating in accordance with said
established compatibility an adaptive software interface for said entities,” as
recited in claim 1. See id. at 6 (citing, e.g., Kuznetsov col. 5, ll. 4 – 8 and 21
– 23, and col. 6, l. 63 – col. 7, l. 9). In particular, the Examiner finds that
Kuznetsov teaches generating translators and interfaces for device
environment compatibility, which combined with the teachings and
suggestions of Sciacca teaches or suggests providing translators (i.e.,
adaptive software interfaces) facilitating data exchange between nodes (i.e.,
a first entity and at least one other entity) communicating using different
protocols (i.e., having interface capabilities that are mapped and therefore
analyzed). See id.
Appeal 2013-003220
Application 09/981,444

7
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Kuznetsov merely
facilitates the generation of translation machine code and is “unlike Sciacca,
and completely unrelated to the present invention.” App. Br. 7. However,
Kuznetsov’s teaches that its generalized teachings and suggestions “can be
applied to the growing problem of integrating disparate or incompatible
computer systems, file formats, network protocols, or other machine data.”
Kuznetsov col. 9, ll. 26 – 28; see also Ans. 6 (“[t]he translator enables
compatibility between two otherwise non-compatible computing
environments”). In other words, the teachings and suggestions of Kuznetsov
have broad applications beyond merely translating machine code, including
applications related to device interfaces (i.e., network protocols) such as
those taught or suggested by Sciacca. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the
teachings and suggestions of Sciacca and Kuznetsov. See Ans. 6.
Appellants further argue that Kuznetsov’s translation “simply
attempts to format one data stream into another different formatted data
stream. This is clearly not the same as analyzing collated semantic
information elements to establish the extent to which the interface
capabilities of the nodes are compatible as claimed.” App. Br. 7. Appellants
argue that Kuznetsov generates a translator “using a datamap describing the
required translations. Kuznetsov therefore fails to disclose using information
regarding the interface capabilities of the different nodes to analyze the
extent to which they are compatible.” Id. However, Kuznetsov teaches that
the data “map is used, together with the protocol descriptions, to configure a
translator compiler engine. The translator compiler engine then generates a
specialized translator.” Kuznetsov col. 6, ll. 64 – 67; see also Kuznetsov col.
Appeal 2013-003220
Application 09/981,444

8
5, ll. 5 – 10; Ans. 6 (“protocol descriptors [sic] are used during runtime to
map (analyze) compatible translators/interfaces”). Appellants’ arguments do
not address the Examiner’s reliance on Kuznetsov’s protocol descriptions
and thus are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection. Thus, Appellants do
not persuasively identify error in the Examiner’s rejection with respect to
these recitations. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that the run-time
use of protocol descriptions in Kuznetsov to configure a translator compiler
engine and generate a specialized translator teaches or suggests analyzing a
pair of collated semantic information elements (protocol descriptions) to
establish the extent to which the interfaces capabilities of two entities are
compatible and automatically generating, in accordance with the established
compatibility, an adaptive software interface for the entities. See Ans. 6.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Kuznetsov teaches or suggests
“at run-time, analysing the at least one pair of said collated semantic
information elements to establish the extent to which the interface
capabilities of said entities are compatible; and automatically generating in
accordance with said established compatibility an adaptive software
interface for said entities,” as recited in claim 1. See id.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1, or
in rejecting claims 2 – 9, 18, 20, and 22, which are not argued separately
with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 9, 18, 20, and
22.
Appeal 2013-003220
Application 09/981,444

9
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