Ex Parte Dixon

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 21, 2016

12391176 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/391,176 02/23/2009 46320 7590 04/25/2016 CRGOLAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bret Dixon 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. AU920080057US1 (014) 6530 EXAMINER SYED,FARHANM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/25/2016 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRET DIXON Appeal2014-006100 Application 12/391,176 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-006100 Application 12/391,176 INVENTION Appellant's invention relates to data subset retrieval from a queued message. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A method for data subset retrieval from a queued message compnsmg: receiving from a requesting application a message retrieval request for a message in a message queue; retrieving the message from the message queue; identifying a field specified by the request; and, transmitting to the requesting application only data in the message corresponding to the identified field specified by the request. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Buxton et al. (US 2004/021599 8 A 1; published Oct. 28, 2004) and Lines et al. (US 2004/0100900 Al; published May 27, 2004). Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Buxton, Lines, and Eisner et al. (US 2007/0180150 Al; published Aug. 2, 2007). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Buxton discloses a method for data subset retrieval from a queued message, including the "receiving," "retrieving", and "transmitting" steps recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3-5 (citing Buxton, Fig. 1, i-fi-f 12, 19, 20, 34, 46, 4 7, 86-87). The Examiner further relies on Lines as 2 Appeal2014-006100 Application 12/391,176 disclosing the recited "identifying" step recited in claim 1. Id. at 6 (citing Lines i-f 47). Appellant argues that Lines fails to teach or suggest the claimed "identifying" step because "Lines merely describes a descriptor that happens to include a field." App. Br. 6. Appellant argues that in Lines, a remote queue descriptor corresponds to a message queue, where the field in the descriptor identifies a corresponding message queue as a remote queue. Id. According to Appellant, the remote queue descriptor is not a message retrieval request, as required in claim 1. Id. 2 In response, the Examiner explains that "Lines disclose[s] message queues include one or more fields, such as a field identifying the corresponding queue, a field specifying the size of the queue, a head and tail pointers, etc." Ans. 13-14 (citing Lines i-fi-16, 35, 36, 39, Abstract). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not clearly identified a teaching or suggestion in Lines that, alone or in combination with Buxton, discloses the disputed claim step of "identifying a field specified by the request." See Ans. 13-14. Each of other independent claims 4 and 6 recites limitations similar to the "identifying" step discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, on the record before us, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 4, and 6, or of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8, dependent thereon. 2 Because this issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not consider Appellant's arguments related to the "transmitting" step. See App. Br. 6-7. 3 Appeal2014-006100 Application 12/391,176 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 is reversed. REVERSED 4