Ex Parte Elad et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 22, 201211635707 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RAFI ELAD and IDO KEREN ____________________ Appeal 2010-005959 Application 11/635,707 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005959 Application 11/635,707 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-27, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Appellants invented software for managing data between a client and server. Specification 1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 1. An article comprising software for managing data between a client and server, the software embodied on tangible media and comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer to perform operations comprising: [1] receiving an updated remote business object property from a client; [2] processing the updated remote business object property into a hosted business object using hosted business rules, wherein the hosted business object comprises: [a] a first hosted business object property corresponding with the updated remote business object property, the first hosted business object property set, by the processing, to the updated remote business object property; and [b] a second hosted business object property related to the updated remote business object property; and [3] communicating an updated hosted business object to the client. 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed September 30, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 24, 2009), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed April 17, 2009). Appeal 2010-005959 Application 11/635,707 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Hayton Bharati US 2002/0120679 A1 US 2004/0040021 A1 Aug. 29, 2002 Feb. 26, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Bharati. Claims 4, 6, 15, 18, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bharati and Hayton. ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-27 turns on whether Bharati describes “hosted business object,” “processing the updated remote business object property into a hosted business object using hosted business rules,” and “a first hosted business object property corresponding with the updated remote business object property, the first hosted business object property set by the processing to the updated remote business object property,” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in Appeal 2010-005959 Application 11/635,707 4 the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following arguments for emphasis. Claims 1-3,5, 7-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Bharati The Appellants first contend that the Examiner misconstrued the term “hosted business object.” App. Br. 13-15. The Appellants specifically argue that the term “hosted business object” is defined by the Specification to mean “structurally organized groups of data, i.e., instances of a particular class, describing well-understood business information that are managed, processes, or otherwise manipulated in an object-oriented modeling environment.” App. Br. 14. We disagree with the Appellants. The portion of the Specification cited by the Appellants illustrates this as an example or embodiment, and not a special definition for the term “hosted business object.” This is evidence by the use of the terms “typically” and “generally” (Specification 6:6-13 and 6:19-21) to designate that such a definition is not the only definition this term is limited to. However, the Examiner construed a “hosted business object” to encompass some component associated with a user’s role in a business or a business application or process in light of the general or typical definitions for the term. Ans. 12 and Specification 6:6-13. As such, we disagree with the Appellants that the Examiner’s construction of a “hosted business object” is inconsistent with the disclosure of the claimed invention. The Appellants further contend that even assuming the Examiner’s interpretation of a “hosted business object” is correct, Bharati fails to Appeal 2010-005959 Application 11/635,707 5 describe “processing the updated remote business object property into a hosted business object using hosted business rules” and “a first hosted business object property corresponding with the updated remote business object property, the first hosted business object property set by the processing to the updated remote business object property,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 15-17. The Appellants specifically argue that Bharati describes one list of software updates is compared to another list of software updates and this comparison step is not the same as processing data. App. Br. 16-17. We disagree with the Appellants. As found by the Examiner, Bharati not only describes comparing a list of available updates to a list of already applied updates, the available but not yet applied updates are updated into the respective user computing devices. Ans. 12-13 (citing Bharati ¶¶ 0012-0014, 0027, 0034, and 0109). That is, updated and available are properties associated with an update and an update is incorporated into the application or business object based on the values of these two properties. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Bharati describes these disputed limitations. Claims 4, 6, 15, 18, 21, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bharati and Hayton The Appellants contend that Hayton fails to cure the deficiencies in Bharati, as alleged in support of claim 1. App. Br. 17. We disagree with the Appellants. The Appellants arguments of alleged deficiencies in Bharati were not found to be persuasive for claim 1 for the reasons discussed supra and are not found to be persuasive here for the same reasons. Appeal 2010-005959 Application 11/635,707 6 CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Bharati. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4, 6, 15, 18, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bharati and Hayton. DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows. The rejection of claims 1-3,5, 7-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Bharati is sustained. The rejection of claims 4, 6, 15, 18, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bharati and Hayton is sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation