Ex Parte Perry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2012

11254342 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte RUSSELL PERRY, NEIL MACDOUGALL, and DAVID MURRAY BANKS ________________ Appeal 2010-006500 Application 11/254,342 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JASON V. MORGAN, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006500 Application 11/254,342 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 – 3, 5 – 9, 11 – 17, 20 – 24, and 26. Claims 4, 10, 18, 19, 25, 27, and 28 are canceled. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We reverse. Invention The invention relates to the capability of providing asynchronous messaging, particularly asynchronous callback messages, in Web service applications. See Spec. 1, ll. 5 – 7. Exemplary Claim (Emphasis Added) 1. A method of invoking a service of a Web service provider using a client terminal, comprising: obtaining a template WSDL binding definition, the template WDSL binding definition specifying how the client terminal can request a generation of a concrete WDSL binding, the template WDSL binding further specifying at least one server parameter, the at least one server parameter being undefined in the template WDSL binding and including at least one of a host, port, and a path of a Web server; communicating with the Web server to request the generation of the concrete WSDL binding, the concrete WSDL binding defining the at least one server parameter, the at least one server parameter defining a Web server; transmitting a parameter binding message to the Web server, the parameter binding message defining a plurality of client parameters, the client parameters including a client verb identification and at least one of a client host, a client port, and a client path; Appeal 2010-006500 Application 11/254,342 3 invoking the Web service using the concrete WSDL binding, the Web service being invoked on the Web server by the client terminal; and returning data from invocation of the Web service to the client terminal by performing a callback operation on the client terminal described by the verb identification. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 3, 5 – 9, 11 – 17, 20 – 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Falter (US 2006/0031850 A1; Feb. 9, 2006; filed May 28, 2004) and Cheenath (US 2004/0143645 A1; July 22, 2004). Ans. 3 – 13. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Cheenath teaches or suggests “transmitting a parameter binding message to the Web server, the parameter binding message defining a plurality of client parameters, the client parameters including a client verb identification and at least one of a client host, a client port, and a client path,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Falter teaches or suggests obtaining a template WSDL binding definition and communicating with a Web server to request the generation of a concrete WSDL binding. See Ans. 3 – 4. However, the Examiner finds that Falter does not teach certain recitations of claim 1, including “transmitting a parameter binding message to the Web server, the parameter binding message defining a plurality of client parameters, the client parameters including a client verb identification and at least one of a client host, a client port, and a client path.” See Ans. 4. Appeal 2010-006500 Application 11/254,342 4 Instead, the Examiner relies on Cheenath to teach or suggest this additional recitation. See Ans. 4 – 5 (citing, e.g., Cheenath ¶¶ [0014] and [0019]). In particular, the Examiner finds that Cheenath’s teaching of a call back object used to receive an asynchronous response teaches or suggests “transmitting a parameter binding message to the Web server” and Cheenath’s teaching of get or set operations teaches or suggests “client parameters including a client verb identification.” See id. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that Cheenath’s call back parameters are passed to a client, not to a Web server. See App. Br. 7. The Examiner disagrees with Appellants, interpreting “‘a parameter binding message’ to be any message or call to the server by the client with concrete arguments/parameters included.” Based on this interpretation, the Examiner finds “that a parameter binding message is transmitted to the Web server upon invocation of the callback object described in Cheenath.” See Ans. 14 (citing Cheenath ¶ [0014]). The Examiner also find that Cheenath teaches or suggests “transmitting a parameter binding message to the Web server” by “describing a call made from client to server with arguments.” See Ans. 14 – 15 (citing Cheenath ¶ [0014]). As Appellants correctly point out, the claimed invention further requires “that the parameter binding message include a client verb.” See Reply Br. 6. The Examiner relies on the get or set operations identified in Cheenath to teach or suggest a client verb. See Ans. 7 – 8 and 15. However, the Examiner does not show that Cheenath teaches or suggests including the get or set operations as part of a message or call to a server. The get or set operations relied upon are part of an example of application code. See Cheenath ¶ [0019]. Client code (i.e., code that interacts with a server) is not Appeal 2010-006500 Application 11/254,342 5 depicted in the cited portion of Cheenath. See id. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not show that Cheenath teaches or suggests transmitting to a web server a parameter binding message that includes a client verb. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has not shown that Cheenath teaches or suggests “transmitting a parameter binding message to the Web server, the parameter binding message defining a plurality of client parameters, the client parameters including a client verb identification and at least one of a client host, a client port, and a client path,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2, 3, 5 – 9, 11 – 17, 20 – 24, and 26, which contain the same or similar recitations. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 3, 5 – 9, 11 – 17, 20 – 24, and 26 is reversed. REVERSED tj