Ex Parte Tan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 2013

10772135 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YIH-SHIN TAN, VIVEKANAND VELLANKI, and JIE XING ____________________ Appeal 2011-001380 Application 10/772,135 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001380 Application 10/772,135 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22-32, and 34-37, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. Claims 9, 14, 21, and 33 were canceled during prosecution. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Appellants’ invention generally relates to the field of information processing and, more particularly, to processing requests for service between nodes. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A method of configuring nodes for service requests in an Open Grid Services Architecture (OGSA), the method comprising: transmitting an OGSA operational rule from a first OGSA service node to a second OGSA service node that is configured to apply the OGSA operational rule to a request for service from the first OGSA service node, wherein the OGSA operational rule specifies how the request for service is handled, and wherein the OGSA operational rule comprises a rule associated with at least one of security, error recovery, and business transaction terms/conditions associated with the request for service. 1 Our decision refers to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed September 14, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 28, 2010), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed March 4, 2009). Appeal 2011-001380 Application 10/772,135 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Kumar Schneider Slaughter US 6,278,993 US 6,408,336 US 6,973,493 Aug. 21, 2001 Jun. 18, 2002 Dec. 6, 2005 Marquet Chalasani US 2004/0083386 A1 US 2004/0103339 A1 Apr. 29, 2004 May 27, 2004 Foster (Foster et al., The Physiology of the Grid, An Open Grid Services Architecture for Distributed Systems Integration, http://globus.org/reasearch/papers/ogsa.pdf (June 22, 2002)). REJECTIONS 1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Chalasani.2 2. Claims 1-8, 10, 13, 15-20, 22, 25-32, 34, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar, Foster, and Schneider. 3. Claims 11-12, 23-24, and 35-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Slaughter, Foster, and Marquet. ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8, 10- 13, 15-20, 22-32, and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) turns on whether the cited references would have taught or suggested the “operational rule” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, 13, 23, 24, 25, 35, and 37. 2 As noted by the Examiner, Appellants failed to respond to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e). (Ans. 14.) We summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection, and any arguments regarding this rejection are hereby waived. Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). Appeal 2011-001380 Application 10/772,135 4 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 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. The Appellants contend that the cited references, collectively, would not have taught or suggested an “operational rule comprises a rule associated with either security, error recovery, or business transaction terms/conditions associated with the request for service” as recited in independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 37. App. Br. 10, 13. We note that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated: “[w]hen the applicant states the meaning that the claim terms are intended to have, the claims are examined with that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the applicant’s invention and its relation to the prior art.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Our reviewing court has further determined that “the specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term, and that the specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). Appeal 2011-001380 Application 10/772,135 5 Appellants have strenuously argued in the Brief that “operational rule” as claimed in claims 1, 13, 25, and 37 is not a search request. App. Br. 12. The Examiner found that Kumar disclosed pricing information of a specific location, to search for from a given website, which is construed as the “operational rule” as claimed. Ans. 14. We find that the Examiner’s construction is a reasonable interpretation in light of Appellants’ specification (pricing information). Id; Spec. 8, ll. 7-9. As such, the Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s specific findings. Further, we note that the Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to rebut the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the cited references would have taught or suggested the “operational rule” as recited in independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 37. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 37, and dependent claims 2-8, 10, 15-20, 22, 26-32, and 34, which fail therewith. Regarding independent claims 11, 23, 24, and 35, the Appellants contend that the Examiner ignores the limitation “the operational rule comprises . . . terms/conditions associated with the request for service,” as recited in independent claims 11, 23, 24, and 35. App. Br. 13-14. The Examiner found that Slaughter would have taught or suggested the limitation at issue. Ans. 9; Slaughter col. 34 ll. 43-48. Accordingly, we find Appellants’ arguments unresponsive to the Examiner’s specific findings and therefore unpersuasive. On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error. Appeal 2011-001380 Application 10/772,135 6 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11, 23, 24, and 35 and dependent claims 12 and 36 which fail therewith. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22-32, and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows.  The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is sustained.  The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22-32, and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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) (2010). AFFIRMED msc