Ex Parte Kerth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

12907645 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

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.
12/907,645 10/19/2010 Rainer KERTH 247-108US 2386
131475 7590 04/18/2016
Dilworth IP - SAP
2 Corporate Drive, Suite 206
Trumbull, CT 06611
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, QUANG N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2016 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 RAINER KERTH and WOLFGANG DEGENHARDT
____________________

Appeal 2014-005565
Application 12/907,645
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–9, 11–18, and 20. Claims 10 and 19 are
objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of
the base claim and any intervening claims. (Final Act. 6). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2014-005565
Application 12/907,645

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a transparent distribution and
decoupling of modules using asynchronous communication and scopes.
(Spec. ¶ 1). Claims 1, 12, and 17, reproduced below, are exemplary of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for decoupling modules in a computer system,
comprising:
sending a message, by a first module in a first host, to a
second module in a second host by means of asynchronous
messaging;
maintaining, in scopes managed in a scope hierarchy, a
context containing one or more resources needed to process the
message;
sending, to the second host, a copy of the context;
pausing the first module;
receiving a response indicating that the message has been
processed by the second module;
receiving, from the second host, updates to the copy of
the context;
incorporating the updates into the context in the scope
hierarchy; and
resuming the first module on the first host.

12. A computer system for hosting a module and managing
resource allocation for the module, comprising:
a communication unit configured to send a message over
a network;
a memory storing a queue for holding back the sending
of a the message; and
a resource manager
for:
maintaining contexts in a scope hierarchy,
Appeal 2014-005565
Application 12/907,645

3
creating a scope associated with the message, and
merging one or more of the contexts with a
received context.

17. A computer system for hosting a module and managing
resource allocation for the module, comprising:
a receiver for receiving a message for the module over a
network;
a processor for executing the module to process the
message,
a resource manager for allocating and releasing scopes
including a scope associated with the message, and
a context storage area for storing a copy of a context, the
context containing resources of the scope associated with the
message.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–9, 11–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Craig E. Wills (Remote
Procedure Call (RPC) 1, 1–10 (1998) (hereafter “Wills”)) and Perumal et al.
(US 2011/0173679 A1; published July 14, 2011).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of independent claims 12 and 17
Appellants contend the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case
of obviousness for independent claims 12 and 17 because the Examiner
generally asserted claims 12 and 17 were rejected under the same rationale
as independent claim 1, even though claims 12 and 17 recite different
features than claim 1. (Br. 11; see Final Act. 6). The Examiner responded
in the Answer by presenting separate analyses of claims 12 and 17. (Ans. 9,
Appeal 2014-005565
Application 12/907,645

4
11). Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to rebut
the Examiner’s analysis, or otherwise shown the Examiner’s findings to be
in error. In view of the foregoing, we are constrained by the record to
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims
12 and 17.

Rejection of independent claims 1 and 20
Appellants contend Wills fails to disclose or suggest “sending a
message, by a first module in a first host, to a second module in a second
host by means of asynchronous messaging,” as recited in independent claim
1. (Br. 13). Appellants contend “[t]he Examiner continues to rely upon
Wills to disclose this element, but offers no explanation of how Wills
discloses asynchronous messaging.” (Id.)
The Examiner relies on page 1, lines 26 and 27 of Wills to teach or
suggest the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 3). This portion of Wills states
“[t]he client stub passes the message to the transport layer, which sends it to
the remote server machine” (Wills 1). We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not demonstrated how this disclosure teaches the message is
sent “by means of asynchronous messaging.” Since we agree with at least
one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits
of Appellants’ other arguments. (Br. 13).
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claim 20, which recites the
same limitation. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3.
Appeal 2014-005565
Application 12/907,645

5
Rejection of dependent claims 4–9, 11, 13–16, and 18
Appellants contend the Examiner inappropriately relied on Official
Notice in rejecting dependent claims 4–9, 11, 13–16, and 18. (Br. 11–12).
More specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner has not properly set forth
Official Notice because the Examiner has only provided a general statement.
(Br. 12). Appellants further “traverses the Official Notice and requests that
the Examiner support his statements.” (Id.) The Examiner responded in the
Answer by providing additional explanation for the reliance on Official
Notice for each disputed claim. (Ans. 7–12, 14).
Initially, we reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 4–9 and 11 due to their dependence on independent claim 1, for the
reasons set forth above.
With respect to claims 13–16 and 18, we find Appellants’ arguments
regarding the Examiner’s Official Notice inadequate to traverse the noticed
findings. Appellants have not specifically pointed out the supposed errors in
the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice, “includ[ing] stating why the
noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in
the art.” See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §
2144.03(C) (9th ed., Rev. 7, Nov. 2015). See also 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b)
(2015). An adequate traversal must contain adequate information or
argument to create on its face a reasonable doubt regarding the
circumstances justifying the Examiner’s notice of what is well known to one
of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that simply because the
Examiner had previously relied on Wills, the Examiner could not later
choose to rely upon Official Notice. (See Br. 12). Additionally, Appellants
Appeal 2014-005565
Application 12/907,645

6
have not set forth persuasive information or arguments as to why the
officially noticed facts were not well-known.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 13–16 and 18.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9, 11, and 20 is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–18 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-IN-PART