Ex Parte Bibr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 8, 2013

11290542 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte VIERA BIBR, BRINDUSA FRITSCH, and MICHAEL SHENFIELD ____________ Appeal 2010-010786 Application 11/290,542 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 16, 20, 21, 24-27, and 29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-010786 Application 11/290,542 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed “to a system and method for accessing multiple data sources by mobile applications” (Spec. ¶ [0002]). Independent claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative. 16. An application gateway server acting as a message broker between a wireless device and a plurality of backend servers, the application gateway server comprising: a message listener for receiving a message from a mobile application on the wireless device, the mobile application described in an application bundle, the application bundle comprising: an application definition including an application communication model aggregating a subset of data sources participating in the mobile application, an index of the subset of data sources, an application communication mapping defining an association between the application communication model and the data source communication model, and providing a collection of incoming and outgoing messages mapped to respective operations to the subset of data sources, and a service descriptor having connectivity information for connecting to the subset of data sources; the message having a message code, the message code associated with a data source operation in the application communication mapping; a message transformer for communicating with the plurality of backend servers hosting the subset of data sources, the message transformer receiving the message, and retrieving the message code in the message, and a data source operation map based on the message code, the data source operation operating on a data source associated with the message code; and Appeal 2010-010786 Application 11/290,542 3 a message processor for getting information for the data source operation specified in the application communication mapping, including a connector for the selected data source, and invoking the connector for retrieving and queuing data from the selectee data source. REFERENCE and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 16, 20, 21, 24-27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Hütsch (US 2001/0034771 A1). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding the web-top manager of Hütsch is not the same as the application bundle recited in Appellants’ claims (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants’ claimed application bundle includes an application definition, an index of a subset of data sources, an application communication mapping, a service descriptor, a message code, a message transformer, and a message processor. (Claim 16). We agree with Appellants. Hütsch’s paragraph 91 describes what the web-top manager includes: In one embodiment, web-top manager 111 includes a plurality of remote applications, such as office applications that include, for example, a word processing application, a spreadsheet application, a database application, a graphics and drawing application, an e- mail application, a contacts manager application, a schedule application, and a presentation application. One office application package, suitable for use with this embodiment of the present invention, is the STAROFFICE Application Suite available from Sun Microsystems, Inc., 901 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, Calif.(STAROFFICE is a trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc.) Appeal 2010-010786 Application 11/290,542 4 The web-top manager does not include, for example, an index, a service descriptor, etc., as recited in the claims. We further find the Examiner appears to be combining different embodiments of Hütsch for corresponding elements of Appellants’ claimed invention (see for example, ¶¶ [0032], [0051], [0064], [0068], [0069], [0238]; Ans. 3-8, 12, 13, 17). It is not enough [in an anticipation rejection] that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Examiner has not made a prima facie case under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as Hütsch does not teach all the elements of Appellants’ claims. We therefore do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 16, 20, 21, 24- 27, and 29, argued together, over Hütsch. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16, 20, 21, 24-27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed. REVERSED tkl