Ex Parte Field et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2015

11756695 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/756,695 06/01/2007 JOHN FIELD YOR920060811US2
(163-169)
1283
49267 7590 03/23/2015
TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 302
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
WILSON, KIMBERLY LOVEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN FIELD, RAFAH A. HOSN, BRUCE DAVID
LUCAS, MARIA-CRISTINA V. MARINESCU, CHRISTIAN
OSKAR ERIK STEFANSEN, MARK N. WEGMAN, and
CHARLES FRANCIS WIECHA
____________________

Appeal 2012-008316
Application 11/756,695
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-008316
Application 11/756,695

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to an apply operation configured to
apply update information to a prestate for determining a stimulus state based
on the update information. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-readable storage-medium including a computer
readable program, wherein the computer readable program
when executed on a computer includes:
a programming development model for constructing or
evolving programs, the programming development model
including a reactor which comprises:
an inbox configured to receive update information;
an apply operation configured to apply the update
information to a prestate to determine a stimulus state
based on the update information; and
a response state determined in accordance with the
stimulus state, the response state being an only state
externally visible from the reactor by other components
in a distributed network system such that the reactor
reacts to the update information and initiates other
reactions by its visible state in the distributed network to
maintain data consistency.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Farchi US 2003/0046609 A1 Mar. 6, 2003
Appeal 2012-008316
Application 11/756,695

3
John Field and Carlos Varela, Toward a Programming Model for
Building Reliable Systems with Distributed State, ELECTRONIC
NOTES IN THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE 68 NO. 3
(2003), available at
http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume68.html (hereinafter Field).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 21–28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Field. Ans. 5–7.
2. Claims 1–11, 29, 31, and 33–35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Field and Farchi. Ans. 7-12, 16-
17.
3. Claims 12–20 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Field. Ans. 12–15.

THE ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding:
1. Field teaches a scheme in which the rules associated with the
reactors can be executed in “any order” as recited in claim
21;
2. Field teaches or suggests “the response state being an only
state externally visible from the reactor by other components
in a distributed network system,” as recited in claims 1 and
33;
3. Farchi teaches a rule reasonably considered to represent a
“stimulus state” as required by claims 1 and 33;
4. Farchi constitutes analogous art.
Appeal 2012-008316
Application 11/756,695

4
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer as our own and we
add the following primarily for emphasis.
1. Claims 21–28 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appellants argue that Field does not teach a scheme in which the rules
associated with the reactors can be executed in “any order” as recited in
claim 21 (Br. 17). Appellants particularly argue that the Examiner’s reliance
on page 11, lines 33–page, 13, line 10, as well as Figures 3 and 4 do not
disclose an order-independent rule (Br. 16).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. The Examiner further
clarifies that Field teaches an actor model (i.e., reactor) operating
independent and in parallel (Ans. 18; Field, pg. 2, ll. 32–33). The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that the concept of operating in any order is considered
to be inherent in the capabilities of an actor to operate independently and in
parallel since to not operate in any order the actors would not have been able
to execute independently and at the same time. That is, they would have to
be concerned with what the other actors were doing. We find no error in the
Examiner’s findings nor have Appellants provided persuasive evidence or
argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We further disagree with Appellants’ argument regarding Field not
teaching either defining rules in a declarative language (i.e., Datalog) or how
a set of order-independent rules can be composed (Br. 17). We agree with
the Examiner. The features upon which Appellants rely are not recited in
the rejected claims (Ans. 19). Although the claims are interpreted in light of
Appeal 2012-008316
Application 11/756,695

5
the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the
claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Appellants further argue that Field fails to teach or suggest the
limitation of “determin[ing] at least one of a response state and a future state
for the reactor and other reactors in a reaction,” as recited in claim 21 (Br.
19). According to Appellants, Field’s reference to “stable state” and
“quiescent state” cannot be interpreted as a “response state” or “future state”
(Br. 19-20). Appellants do not provide an explanation for their assertion
either by argument or evidence.
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding claim 21 states “to determine at least one of a response
state and a future state” (Ans. 20; pg. 6, ll. 25-36). Field discusses updating
the transactor’s state as a result of a sent message (Ans. 20). The Examiner
interprets the response state as the new state after a change has taken place
(Ans. 20). The Examiner construes the transactor’s updated state as being
tantamount to the claimed response state (Ans. 20). Thus, the Examiner
correctly finds Field teaches determining at least a response state.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 and for the same
reasons the rejections of claims 22–28 and 30.
2. Claims 1–11 and 33–35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue Field fails to teach or suggest, “the response state
being an only state externally visible from the reactor by other components
in a distributed network system,” as recited in claims 1 and 33 (Br. 22-24).
Moreover, with respect to claim 1, Field further fails to teach or suggest that
a reactor reacts to the update information and initiates other reactions “by
the reactor’s visible state” (Br. 22-24).
Appeal 2012-008316
Application 11/756,695

6
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, Field on page 2, lines 14–16, states “[t]he negotiation process
will entail sending messages among components, and updating each
component’s state in various ways” (Ans. 22). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding the state is visible once the message has been sent and is
committed (Ans. 22). Before this point, there is nothing to be visible to
other actors (Ans. 22). We find no error in the Examiner’s findings nor have
Appellants provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Appellants further argue that claim 1 further recites, “an apply
operation configured to apply the update information to a prestate to
determine a stimulus state based on the update information; and a response
state determined in accordance with the stimulus state” (Br. 22). Appellants
argue claim 33 recites, “an apply operation configured to apply the update
information to a prestate to determine a stimulus state based on the update
information; and a response state derived in accordance with the stimulus
state” (Br. 22). Appellants explain the “stimulus” in Farchi is a “rule” which
consists of three parts (i.e., a name, a precondition, and a list of outcome
states) and which is applied to find bugs in non-deterministic software (Br.
23-26). In stark contrast, the “stimulus state” recited in the present claims is
a “state” of a reactor construct in a programming development model (Br.
26). According to Appellants no reasonable argument can be made that a
“rule” used for testing non-deterministic software programs is equivalent to
a “state” of a construct in a programming development model (Br. 26).
Appeal 2012-008316
Application 11/756,695

7
We do not agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
no matter what the application, there will be an initial state, some type of
stimulus that causes a reaction, and then a response state which is the result
of the reaction (Ans. 23; referring to ¶ 24 of Farchi). Therefore, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation the rule is considered to represent the
stimulus state (Ans. 23). Appellants provide no persuasive evidence or
argument to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See Id.
Appellants further argue Farchi is improper as constituting non-
analogous art (Br. 26-27). According to Appellants Farchi is not directed to
the endeavor or reasonably pertinent to any of the problems addressed by the
present principles (Br. 27). Appellants assert a system for testing non-
deterministic software clearly does not comprise the same “endeavor” as a
scheme for providing a programming model (Br. 27). Appellants further
assert Farchi has nothing to do with the principles relating to problems
associated with providing a programming model for “programs [which] are
characterized by collections of loosely-coupled distributed components that
are assembled on the fly to produce a composite application” (Br. 27-28).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. “Whether a reference in
the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561,
1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Two criteria have evolved for answering the
question: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless
of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of
the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658-59
(citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599
Appeal 2012-008316
Application 11/756,695

8
F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). In the instant Appeal, Farchi is analogous
because it is in the same field of endeavor of computer programming as well
as dealing with the pertinent problem of an initial state, a stimulus, and a
response state of a program application.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–11 and
33–35.
3. Claims 12–20 , 29, 31, and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants essentially repeat the same arguments as those raised for
claims 1, 21, and 33 (Br. 30–34). Accordingly, for the same reasons as those
stated supra, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12–20, 29,
31, and 32.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding:
1. Field teaches a scheme in which the rules associated with the
reactors can be executed in “any order” as recited in claim
21;
2. Field teaches or suggests “the response state being an only
state externally visible from the reactor by other components
in a distributed network system,” as recited in claims 1 and
33;
3. Farchi teaches or suggests a rule reasonably considered to
represent a “stimulus state” as required by claims 1 and 33;
4. Farchi constitutes analogous art.

Appeal 2012-008316
Application 11/756,695

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–35 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED