Ex Parte Mehta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2018

11843576 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/843,576 08/22/2007
64280 7590 05/22/2018
Mintz Levin/SAP
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
Harish Mehta
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.
34874-300/2007P00140US 5319
EXAMINER
LE, JESSICA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2018 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroombos@mintz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARISH MEHTA, THIERRY TUNG,
ALEXANDERZUBEV, and TIMM FALTER1
Appeal2016-004801
Application 11/843,576
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-21. App. Br. 1. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants list SAP AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2, filed
Aug. 24, 2015 ("App. Br.").
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents, for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
March 16, 2015 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed February 4,
2016 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed April 4, 2016 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal 2016-004801
Application 11/843,576
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
The subject matter disclosed herein provides methods and
apparatus, including computer program products, for providing a
classification service. The method may receive a request to
access a [ universal, description, discovery and integration
(UDDI)] registry. The classification service may access
metadata representing a classification system for the data stored
in the UDDI registry. The classification service may provide the
data stored in the UDDI registry in a format based on the access
metadata.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1 illustrates the claimed invention:
1. A computer-readable storage medium contammg
instructions to configure a processor to perform a method, the
method comprising:
forming, at a classification service, a plurality of
predetermined classification systems for data in a universal,
description, discovery and integration registry;
managing, at the classification service, metadata
representing the plurality of predetermined classification
systems;
accessing, at the classification service in response to a
request received from a user interface, the metadata representing
the plurality of predetermined classification systems formed for
the data stored in the universal, description, discovery and
integration registry;
accessing, by the classification service, the data stored in
the universal, description, discovery and integration registry,
wherein the data is accessed based on the accessed metadata; and
providing, by the classification service, to the user
interface the data from the universal, description, discovery and
integration registry in a format based on at least one of the
plurality of predetermined classification systems represented by
the accessed metadata.
2
Appeal 2016-004801
Application 11/843,576
Claims 1--4, 7-11, 14--18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Gosby (US 2005/0005232 Al; published Jan. 6,
2005) and Rafnsson (US 2008/0271047 Al; published Oct. 30, 2008). Final
Act. 2-7.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Gosby, Rafnsson, and Cutlip (US 2004/0039738 Al; published
Feb. 26, 2004). Final Act. 7-8.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Gosby, Rafnsson, and Breeds (US 2006/0026125 Al;
published Feb. 2, 2006). Final Act. 8-10.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Gos by teaches most of the limitations of
independent claim 1 (Final Action 2--4 ), including "forming, at a
classification service, a plurality of predetermined classification systems for
data in a [UDDI] registry" (id. 3 (citing Gosby, ,r,r 53, 74, 86; FIGs. 4--5)).
The Examiner explains that "[Gosby's] taxonomies are broadly interpreted
as the [ claimed] classification service systems because the taxonomies are
technically formed based on the classified groups in categories." Id. at 3
( emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds that Gosby does not teach "accessing, by the
classification service, the data stored in the [UDDI] registry, wherein the
3
Appeal 2016-004801
Application 11/843,576
data is accessed based on the accessed metadata." Id. at 4. The Examiner
finds that Rafnsson teaches this limitation. Id. at 4--5 (citing Rafnsson, ,r,r 5,
22-25, 29, 30; FIGs. 3, 4).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to access
Gosby's data stored at the UDDI registry "based on [Rafnsson's] accessed
metadata for the benefits of deriving web services [ using] a discovery to
discover services that are available on a[] web application server ( e.g.,
UDDI)." Id. at 5 (citing Rafnsson ,r 30). The Examiner further reasons that
"[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this
change in order to provide accessing the data stored based on accessed
metadata." Id.
Appellants contend Gosby's second computing system does not
classify any data in a universal, description, discovery and integration
registry. App. Br. 10. Appellants support this argument with more specific
assertions. According to Appellants, "Gosby's second computing system
classifies documents that are stored at the second computing system, but
does not classify data stored in a [UDDI] registry." Id. at 14 (emphasis
omitted).
Appellants next assert "Gosby's extracted text, category keys, and
classification information describe documents stored at the second
computing system, rather than metadata describing data in a [UDDI]
registry." Id. at 15 ( emphasis omitted). Appellants finally assert "Gos by' s
second computing system accesses documents stored at the second
computing system, but not data stored in a [UDDI] registry." Id. at 16
( emphasis omitted).
4
Appeal 2016-004801
Application 11/843,576
The Examiner subsequently finds "the feature[] upon which applicant
relies (i.e., 'classify data stores in a universal, description, discovery and
integration registry') are not recited in the rejected claim(s)." Ans. 4 (citing
App. Br. 15).
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that the claims set forth classifying data
stored in a UDDI registry. Claim 1 expressly recites, for example, "forming,
at a classification service, a plurality of predetermined classification systems
for data in a [UDDI] registry." The Examiner does not explain how this
language alternatively can be interpreted. See generally Final Act.; Ans.
In contrast to the express requirements of the claim language, Gosby's
second computing system extracts, analyzes, and classifies content of
documents that were received from the first computing system. Gosby ,r 79.
Gosby also discloses that the remote host 144 of the first computing
system 140 uses linked UDDI services 146 for selecting which web service
host 160 (i.e., which second computing system) will process a given
document. Id. ,r 85. However, the cited portions of Gosby do not teach or
suggest forming classification systems for data in a UDDI registry, as
claimed. Nor do the cited portions of Gosby teach classifying metadata
described in a UDDI registry.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim, or of independent claims 8
and 15, which recite similar language. We, likewise, do not sustain the
5
Appeal 2016-004801
Application 11/843,576
obviousness rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 9--11, 14, 16-18, and 21, which
depend from claims 1, 8, and 15.
With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 5, 6, 12,
13, 19, and 20, the Examiner does not rely upon the additional teachings of
Cutlip or Breeds to cure the deficiency of the obviousness rejection
explained above. See Final Act. 7-10. For the reasons set forth above, then,
we, likewise, do not sustain the obviousness rejections of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
6