Ex Parte Zargham et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 21, 2010

10013091 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BAHMAN ZARGHAM and GREGORY BATTAS
____________

Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 21, 2010
____________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-20, and 22-27. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

2

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to enriched publish and subscribe
solutions for reducing latencies in enterprise operations and business
processes. These solutions are implemented in a zero latency enterprise
(ZLE) framework that allows the enterprise to integrate its services,
applications and data in real time. Namely, an enterprise equipped to run as
a ZLE is capable of integrating, in real time, its enterprise-wide data,
applications, business transactions, operations and values. An operational
data store operates as an information broker between the applications such
that applications publish messages to the central repository and subscribe to
messages from the central, rather than exchange request-response messages
directly with each other. Thus, enriched publish and subscribe improves
information synchronization between applications and reduces the number
of request-response messages the applications would otherwise exchange.
Consequently, an enterprise conducting its business as a ZLE exhibits
superior management of its resources, operations, and customer care.
Abstract.

Representative Claims
1. A method for enriched publish and subscribe in an
enterprise running as a zero latency enterprise (ZLE), the enterprise
experiencing a plurality of events occurring in association with
business transactions conducted at a plurality of sites across the
enterprise, the method comprising:
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

3
initiating, in real time, a process responsive to an event, the
process including
publishing to a central repository one or more messages
prompted by that event containing information from that event,
respective information from the plurality of events being
aggregated in the central repository where the aggregated
information can, in real-time, be accessible and available for
extraction and analysis from across the enterprise,
updating the aggregated information with information
from the published messages,
creating enriched messages by enriching the messages
with information from that event and/or corresponding
information extracted from the central repository, and
subscribing the enriched messages.

16. A ZLE virtual hub for enriched publish and subscribe
operations associated with business transactions conducted by an
enterprise running as a zero latency enterprise (ZLE), the system
being implemented in a ZLE framework and comprising:
one or more applications via which the business transactions are
conducted; and
an operational data store (ODS), the ODS being operatively
communicative with the one or more applications such that the
applications are capable to publish messages to and subscribe to
messages from the ODS, the ODS being configured
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

4
to operate as a dynamic central repository that
consolidates information from across the enterprise and
supports business transactional access to real time information
from any of the one or more applications,
to know what particular information any one of the
applications needs in order to accomplish its task, the particular
information enriching messages to which the applications
subscribe, and
to update the consolidated information with information
from messages published by the applications.

Prior Art
Chandra 6,058,389 May 2, 2000
Stewart 2002/0013759 A1 Jan. 31, 2002
Schmidt 2002/0026630 A1 Feb. 28, 2002

Examiner’s Rejections/Claim Status
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22-27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Stewart.1
Claims 4 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart and Schmidt.
Claims 9, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart and Chandra.
Claims 3 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim.

1 Appellants and the Examiner list claim 21 as rejected, but the Examiner
has indicated that the claim is directed to allowable subject matter (Ans. 10).
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

5

Claim Groupings
In view of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 16. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUES
(1) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Stewart describes “enriching the messages with information from that event
and/or corresponding information extracted from the central repository” as
recited in claim 1?
(2) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Stewart describes “the applications are capable to publish messages to and
subscribe to messages from the ODS [operational data store], the ODS being
configured to operate as a dynamic central repository that consolidates
information from across the enterprise . . . to know what particular
information any one of the applications needs in order to accomplish its task,
. . . and to update the consolidated information with information from
messages published by the applications” as recited in claim 16?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Stewart discloses an enterprise wide electronic collaboration
system allowing trading partners to act as participants in a complex trading
process. Participants communicate with one another by joining
conversations that are hosted in a collaboration space and managed by a
collaboration hub. A conversation management system for the enterprise
wide electronic collaboration system includes a conversation manager for
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

6
managing the flow of messages in the collaboration system, including a
conversation initiation mechanism for initiating a conversation, a
participation registration mechanism for registering participants in the
conversation, and a conversation repository for storing conversation
management data. Abstract.
2. Each conversation has a unique context that enables users to
manage multiple, concurrent conversations taking place in a collaboration
space. The collaboration system uses the context information to help ensure
that messages from one conversation do not get “tangled up” with messages
from another. For example, an individual trading partner that requests
proposals or negotiating prices with multiple vendors concurrently must
maintain the integrity and security of each interaction. ¶ [0033].
3. A collaboration server provides the ability to interface with
workflow processes running on a workflow server. The collaboration server
controls the flow of information into and out of the workflows maintained
by the workflow server. Messages and workflows from different trading
partners are filtered by the collaboration server and routed to the appropriate
recipients in a collaborative fashion. ¶ [0083].
4. Figure 8 shows an example of a collaboration space (c-space)
shared by many buyers, sellers and other entities. The c-space is an
abstraction supporting a single business model, business message protocols,
a secure message space, security policies, quality of service policies, and a
registered set of business trading partners. The c-space contains message
vocabularies, business process models, participant roles, and other e-market
metadata that are essential to the creation, deployment, and ongoing
maintenance of trading activities. ¶ [0112].
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

7
5. The collaboration hub (c-hub) is the execution engine of a
c-space, allowing the c-space owner and trading partners to create, route,
and manage messages within the trading environment. To facilitate the
execution of business transactions across a disparate base of trading partners,
XML is used as an e-business messaging semantic. ¶ [0114].
6. XML offers tremendous advantages as a universal format for
messages passed between trading partners because it provides a common
syntax to structure information. However, XML by itself does not solve the
interoperability problem, as collaborating entities must agree on the
semantics of business protocols for this information. The collaboration
system is independent of business protocol message vocabulary, and can
support any standards-based or proprietary business protocol or vocabulary.
As such the collaboration system delivers the ability to support multiple
protocols within the same c-space as well as to extend a c-space through
supplemental protocol handlers or business logic plug-ins. ¶ [0115].
7. In some instances, the c-hub stores a portion of the message
itself. ¶ [0150].
8. The message persistence capabilities of the c-hub allow
delivery to a recipient that is temporarily unavailable. ¶ [0265].

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). During prosecution
before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

8
disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969).
“Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the
public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will
be given broader scope than is justified.’” In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “An essential
purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear,
correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope
be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Zletz,
893 F.2d at 322. “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not
unfair to the applicant . . . because the applicant has the opportunity to
amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” Amer. Acad., 367
F.3d at 1364.
Anticipation
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

ANALYSIS
Section 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 24
Appellants contend that Stewart does not disclose enriching the
messages with information from that event and/or corresponding
information extracted from the central repository as recited in claim 1. Br.
10-11. The Examiner finds that Stewart discloses context information to
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

9
ensure that messages from one conversation do not get tangled up with
messages from another. The Examiner also finds that Stewart discloses
messages from different trading partners that are filtered by a server and
routed to appropriate recipients in a true collaborative fashion. The
Examiner concludes that Stewart therefore discloses messages being
enriched. Ans. 12.
However, claim 1 does not recite “messages being enriched.” Claim 1
recites “creating enriched messages by enriching the messages with
information from that event and/or corresponding information extracted
from the central repository.” The Examiner has failed to show how the
context information or the filtering and routing described by Stewart
enriches the messages “with information from that event and/or
corresponding information extracted from the central repository” as recited
in claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 15 contain a limitation similar to that of
claim 1 for which the rejection fails. We thus do not sustain the § 102(e)
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 24.

Section 103(a) rejections of claims 4, 9, and 14
Claims 4 and 9 depend from claim 1, and claim 14 depends from
claim 11. Because neither Schmidt nor Chandra as applied remedies the
deficiencies in the rejection against base claim 1 or 11, we do not sustain the
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 4, 9, and 14.

Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

10
Section 102(e) rejection of claims 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25-27
Appellants contend that Stewart describes a collaboration hub (which
corresponds to the claimed operational data store (ODS)) that forwards
messages, but does not teach that applications themselves publish messages
to and subscribe messages from the collaboration hub. Br. 11.
However, the Examiner finds that paragraphs 89 to 113 of Stewart
describe applications that can publish messages to and subscribe messages
from the collaboration hub. Ans. 6. Paragraph 112 of Stewart discusses
figure 8, which shows several applications representing buyers, sellers, and
other entities collaborating by sending messages through collaboration
space. FF 3-4. The collaboration hub, or ODS, is the execution engine of
collaboration space. FF 5. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Stewart describes that “applications are capable to publish messages to and
subscribe to messages from the ODS” within the meaning of claim 16.
Appellants contend that Stewart does not describe that the ODS
knows what particular information the applications need to accomplish their
tasks. Br. 11-12.
However, the Examiner finds that Stewart describes a collaboration
hub that allows an owner and trading partners to create, route, and manage
messages within the trading environment. Ans. 6, 12-14. The collaboration
hub provides a common syntax to exchange messages between applications
that use different protocols. FF 5-6. The common syntax enriches messages
by making the messages accessible to applications that use proprietary
business protocols. When the “task” that the application “needs to
accomplish” is delivering a message to another application that uses a
proprietary protocol, then the collaboration hub “knows” the appropriate
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

11
routing and syntax information, which is “particular information any one of
the applications needs in order to accomplish its task, the particular
information enriching the messages to which the applications subscribe”
within the meaning of claim 16.
Appellants contend that Stewart does not describe that the ODS
updates consolidated information with information from messages published
by applications. Br. 12.
However, the Examiner finds that paragraph 150 of Stewart describes
that the collaboration hub operates as a dynamic central repository that
consolidates information from across the enterprise. Ans. 6. Stewart also
describes that the collaboration hub has message persistence capabilities to
allow delivery of a message to a recipient that is temporarily unavailable.
FF 7-8. When the collaboration hub uses message persistence capabilities to
store a message, then receives and stores another message, the collaboration
hub updates “the consolidated information with information from messages
published by the applications” within the meaning of claim 16.
We are therefore not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that
claim 16 is anticipated by Stewart. We sustain the § 102(e) rejection of
claim 16. Claims 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25-27 fall with claim 16.

Section 103(a) rejections of claims 17 and 18
Appellants have not provided separate arguments for the patentability
of claims 17 and 18, but submit that claims 17 and 18 are allowable for the
reasons given with respect to base claim 16. Br. 13. Because we find the
arguments for claim 16 unpersuasive, we sustain the § 103(a) rejections of
claims 17 and 18.
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

12

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Stewart describes “enriching the messages with information from that event
and/or corresponding information extracted from the central repository” as
recited in claim 1.
(2) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that Stewart describes “the applications are capable to publish messages to
and subscribe to messages from the ODS [operational data store], the ODS
being configured to operate as a dynamic central repository that consolidates
information from across the enterprise . . . to know what particular
information any one of the applications needs in order to accomplish its task,
. . . and to update the consolidated information with information from
messages published by the applications” as recited in claim 16.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Stewart is reversed.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart and Schmidt is reversed.
The rejection of claims 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart and Chandra is reversed.
The rejection of claims 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Stewart is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart and Chandra is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-005054
Application 10/013,091

13
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart and Schmidt is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528