Ex Parte Angelov

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 13, 2016

12794094 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121794,094 06/04/2010 50400 7590 10/17/2016 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 Dimitar Angelov 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. 2058.355US2 8063 EXAMINER ALGIBHAH, HAMZA N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/17/2016 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DIMIT AR ANGELOV Appeal2014-006880 Application 12/794,094 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), from a final rejection of claims 1-15. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relates generally to the software arts, and, more specifically, to a Web services message processing runtime framework." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 8, and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below: Appeal2014-006880 Application 12/794,094 1. A method comprising: creating a reliable messaging object comprising a configuration context object; receiving the reliable messaging object in a messaging system independent from a web services runtime framework; and processing, using one or more processors, the reliable messaging object in the messaging system. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Angelov 1 US 2007/0067411 Al Mar. 22, 2007 Videlov US 2008/0307056 Al Dec. 11, 2008 THE REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Videlov. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Angelov. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 8, and 10 as being indefinite The Examiner notes that independent claims 1, 8, and 10 each employ the term "reliable messaging object."2 Final Act. 2. "It is not clear to the examiner what these limitations are referring to. The specification does not 1 Angelov is the parent of presently pending continuation application no. 12/794,094. Spec. ,-r 1. 2 The Examiner also references the term "configuration context object" as recited in claims 1 and 10. Final Act. 2. 2 Appeal2014-006880 Application 12/794,094 explain or define what the applicant meant by a reliable messaging object or a configuration context object." Final Act. 2-3. Appellant references figure 16 and paragraph 124 from Appellant's Specification stating, "When read and understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, the undersigned submits that the skilled artisan would fully appreciate what is meant by the terms reliably messaging object and configuration context object." Br. 10. The Examiner replicates passages from Appellant's Brief which discuss paragraphs and figures additional to paragraph 124 and figure 16, stating, the "Examiner respectively disagrees." Ans. 12-13. Addressing "the cited paragraphs, figures and [] the specification as a whole," the Examiner maintains that "[ t ]he applicant did not explain how the cited paragraphs and figures support the claimed elements." Ans. 13. According to the Examiner, For example, claim [ 1] states the limitation "receiving the reliable messaging object in a messaging system independent from a web services runtime framework.[]" [T]he applicant stated that paragraphs 0098-0100, 0122-0124, and Fig 6, support the limitation. Fig 6 shows an improved Web services message processing runtime framework and does not teach the process of receiving the reliable messaging object in a messing system independent from a web services runtime framework. Similarly the cited paragraphs 0098-0100, 0122-0124 do not teach receiving the reliable messaging object in a messing system independent from a web services runtime framework as claimed. Ans. 13-14. As can be seen, the Examiner is addressing a method step (in bold above) that contains the allegedly indefinite phrase "reliable messaging object." The Examiner is indicating that there is a lack of 3 Appeal2014-006880 Application 12/794,094 support for this "receiving" method step and, as a result, rejects claims 1, 8, and 10 because the phrase "reliable messaging object" is indefinite. Final Act. 2. Even if we presume that the method step of "receiving the reliable messaging object" lacks written support, 3 the Examiner does not explain how a failure to disclose this "receiving" step renders the limitation of a "reliable messaging object" indefinite underÂ§ 112, second paragraph. Final Act. 2. The Examiner also states, "All of the other arguments are now moot in light of the previous response." Ans. 14. We are not in agreement with the Examiner that the reasons relied upon, and directed to a lack of written support for a method step, establishes the conclusion that the phrase "reliable messaging object" is indefinite. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 8, and 10 (and their dependent claims) as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph. 4 The rejection of (a) claims 1-15 as anticipated by Videlov and, (b) claims 1-15 as anticipated by Angelov Appellant disputes the Examiner's anticipation rejections based on Videlov and Angelov. Br. 11. This is because "one of which is the parent 3 We express no opinion on that point because there is noÂ§ 112, first paragraph rejection before us regarding this "receiving" step. 4 The Examiner also rejected claim 10 (and its dependent claims) as being indefinite because "'the machine' has no antecedent basis." Final Act. 3. Appellant disagrees stating that claim 10 recites "when executed by a machine cause the machine to perform a method." Br. 10. We agree with Appellant that the antecedent basis of "the machine" (not bolded) has been addressed. We reverse the Examiner's additional rejection of claim 10 as being indefinite. 4 Appeal2014-006880 Application 12/794,094 application of the present case and the second of which was filed after the filing date of the priority claim of the present Application." Br. 11. More specifically, Appellant contends, "Angelov cannot and does not serve to anticipate the claims of the Application since the instant Application has the benefit of the prior-filed Application to Angelov." Br. 11. Additionally, regarding the reference to Videlov, Appellant states, "since the priority date of September 21, 2005 of Angelov predates the filing date of Videlov, namely June 7, 2007, Videlov cannot be considered to anticipate the claims since Videlov has a later filing date than the priority date of the instant Application." Br. 11. The Examiner does not address this matter other than to state (as indicated above), "All of the other arguments are now moot in light of the previous response" (i.e., the "response" referring to the Examiner's example regarding the method step of "receiving"). Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we agree with Appellant that, in view of Angelov and Videlov, "a prima facie case of anticipation has not been properly established." Br. 11. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15 as being anticipated by Angelov and by Videlov. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15 are reversed. REVERSED 5