Ex Parte Tebbe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

13751513 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131751,513 01/28/2013
32864 7590 07/03/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthias Tebbe
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13913-0537001/120276US01 3224
EXAMINER
SAYOC, KRISTOFFER LS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHIAS TEBBE, JUERGEN KREMER,
JOERG SINGLER, and JOBIN JOHN 1
Appeal 2017-011811
Application 13/751,513
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. See App. Br.
4.
Appeal 2017-011811
Application 13/751,513
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a composition engine as a service. Spec.,
Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with formatting and labels added
identifying disputed limitations, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing a composition
engine as a service, the method comprising:
providing a composition engine, the composition engine
being implemented between a customer and a plurality of
provider systems [(a)] using a hosted system that is publicly
accessible and supports the plurality of provider systems and
being configured to receive requests from multiple service
consumers using any of multiple service consumer protocols;
receiving a first request in the composition engine from a
service consumer operated by the customer, the first request
conforming to a service consumer protocol without being
configured to any of multiple provider system protocols;
in response to receiving the first request, [(b )] accessing
by the composition engine, provider system information that is
specific to the customer to identifY based on the provider system
information one of the plurality of provider systems that is
relevant to the first request;
2 We refer to the Specification filed Jan. 28, 2013 ("Spec."); the Final Office
Action mailed Feb. 1, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 19,
2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed Aug. 2, 2017 ("Ans.");
and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 27, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal 2017-011811
Application 13/751,513
generating, by the composition engine and in response to
the first request, a second request to each of the plurality of
provider systems, the second request conforming to a provider
system protocol, [ ( c)] the composition engine configured to
generate requests conforming to any of multiple provider system
protocols by using a customer specific logic implemented in the
composition engine configured to transform the first request into
the second request;
receiving, by the composition engine, information from
the provider system, and adapting the received information to
conform to the service consumer protocol; and
exposing, by the composition engine, a web service that
makes the adapted information available to the service consumer.
REFERENCE
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Blaukopf et al. US 2004/0103407 Al May 27, 2004
(hereinafter "Blaukopf')
REJECTION3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Blaukopf. Final Act. 2-23; Ans. 2-20.
3 Appellants argue, as a group, the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). App. Br. 12-15. Appellants argue the rejection of
dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the
same reasons presented for the group of claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 15.
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1-20 based
on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2017-011811
Application 13/751,513
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-23) and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-15) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Limitation a: publically accessible hosted system
Appellants contend Blaukopf does not describe "using a hosted
system that is publically accessible" to implement a composition engine
between a customer and a plurality of provider systems, as required by
disputed limitation (a) of claim I. App. Br. 13-14 (citing Blaukopfi-f 28).
According to Appellants, the Examiner erred in rejecting this disputed
limitation because Blaukopf describes installing proxy code on the client to
establish access to server-side services, the client not being a publically
accessible host system.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error because
Appellants fail to address the Examiner's findings. Rather than the argued
client, the Examiner finds Blaukopf s java-enabled web server (Blaukopf
Fig. 1: 20) having a mediator (Blaukopf Fig. 1: 22) between the client
(Blaukopf Fig. 1: 12) and server-side services (Blaukopf Fig. 1: 16)
describes a "composition engine being implemented between a customer and
a plurality of provider systems using a hosted system that is publicly
accessible," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2 (citing Fig. 1 and i-fi-f 16, 7 6,
123); Ans. 20-21; See esp. Final Act. 20. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Blaukopf discloses disputed limitation (a).
4
Appeal 2017-011811
Application 13/751,513
Limitation (b): provider system information accessed by
the composition engine
Appellants further contend Blaukopf s delivery of requests by the
mediator to the providers based upon information given by clients does not
describe "accessing by the composition engine, provider system information
... to identify based on the provider system information one of the plurality
of provider systems that is relevant to the first request," as recited by
disputed limitation (b) of claim 1. App. Br. 14. Appellants provide
insufficient explanation supporting their contention. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (requiring appellant to explain why the examiner erred).
Merely reciting a claim limitation and asserting it is not present falls
short of identifying an error in the Examiner's rejection as required on
appeal. "Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to
de nova review of all aspects of a rejection." See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (internal citations omitted).
Arguments must address the Examiner's action. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
("The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art"). "[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require
an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections." In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365---66 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Board will not
advocate for Appellants by scouring the record to see if the Board can
identify some flaw in the Examiner's findings of fact, articulated reasoning,
5
Appeal 2017-011811
Application 13/751,513
or legal conclusions. See, e.g., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I
LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1250 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("'A skeletal 'argument',
really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim ... "')
(internal citation omitted). Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient
reasoning in support of such assertions, Appellants' naked contentions are
insufficient to persuade us of reversible Examiner error.
The Examiner finds Blaukopf's mediator (Figs. 1, 2: 22) calls a
developer-provided class to communicate with different web services using
protocols. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Blaukopfi-fi-180, 88). Thus, under a broad
but reasonable interpretation of disputed limitation (b ), we agree with the
Examiner in finding Blaukopf's mediator (the recited "composition engine")
calling (i.e .. , "accessing") of its appropriate developer-provided class (the
recited "provider system information") to permit communication with a web
service through its required non-standard protocol discloses "accessing by
the composition engine, provider system information ... to identify based
on the provider system information one of the plurality of provider systems
that is relevant to the first request," as recited in claim 1. Id. Thus, in the
absence of sufficient evidence or argument to the contrary, we agree with the
Examiner in finding Blaukopf discloses disputed limitation (b ).
Limitation (c): requests generated by the composition engine
Appellants further contend Blaukopf' s process of reformulating
service requests using the remote services' respective protocols does not
describe the "composition engine configured to generate requests
conforming to any of multiple provider system protocols by using a
customer specific logic implemented in the composition engine configured
to transform the first request into the second request," as recited by disputed
6
Appeal 2017-011811
Application 13/751,513
limitation ( c) of claim 1. App. Br. 14--15. Again, Appellants provide
insufficient explanation supporting their contention. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds Blaukopf's mediator (Figs. 1, 2: 22) interprets
web service requests (the recited "first request") from the client and delivers
the requests (the recited "second request") to a web service provider using a
protocol (the required "provider system protocol"). Final Act. 4. The
Examiner also finds that the mediator (Figs. 1, 2: 22) calls a developer-
provided class to communicate with a web-service using a protocol. Final
Act. 3--4 (citing Blaukopfi-f 80). In other words, by calling the developer
provided class, the client's request is transformed by the mediator into an
acceptable web service request in accordance with a communication
protocol by developer-provided classes in the mediator as required by
disputed limitation ( c ). Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence or
argument to the contrary, we agree with the Examiner in finding Blaukopf
discloses limitation ( c ).
For the first time in their Reply Brief, Appellants raise new arguments
that the Examiner ignored the claimed "first request." Reply Br. 3.
Appellants have not shown good cause for these new arguments first raised
in their Reply Brief, and as such, Appellants' belated arguments are waived
as untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2016). In this regard, we note that the
Examiner has not had the opportunity to consider and respond to Appellants'
new argument.
Furthermore, even if timely presented, Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive of reversible Examiner error. The Examiner finds Blaukopf's
disclosure of a web service request being sent from the client to the mediator
7
Appeal 2017-011811
Application 13/751,513
describes "receiving the first request" as required by claim 1. See Final Act.
3 (citing Blaukopfi-f 80); Ans. 22. Appellants' arguments do not address
these findings of the Examiner.
Appellants' arguments regarding "using a customer specific logic" is
also untimely as presented for the first time in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 5),
and are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2016).
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Blaukopf.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8