Ex Parte Weng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 201211027691 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JIE WENG, TAO LIN, BRIAN S. MO, RICHARD J. SWAN, and RAMA GURRAM ____________ Appeal 2010-005702 Application 11/027,691 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005702 Application 11/027,691 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner finally rejected claims 16-19 and 21-36. Claims 1-15 and 20 have been cancelled. Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION This invention relates to systems and methods for implementing techniques for generic device integration within an auto-id system. (Spec. 1). Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 16. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, at an integration layer, a connection request from an auto-id component to be connected to an auto-id node, the connection request specifying one or more communication parameters of the auto-id component; instantiating a generic adaptor class for effecting communication between the auto-id node and the auto-id component, the generic adaptor implementing functionality common to multiple different, specific adaptor classes stored in a class repository of the integration layer; instantiating a generic communicator class for effecting a data transport aspect of the communication between the auto-id node and the auto-id component, the generic communicator class implementing functionality common to multiple different, specific communicator classes stored in the class repository, and the generic communicator class being a component of the generic adaptor class; Appeal 2010-005702 Application 11/027,691 3 instantiating a generic converter class for effecting a data conversion aspect of the communication between the auto-id node and the auto-id component, the generic converter class implementing functionality common to multiple different, specific converter classes stored in the class repository, and the generic converter class being a component of the generic adaptor class; identifying, from among the multiple different adaptor, communicator, and converter classes stored in the class repository, a specific adaptor, a specific communicator class, and a specific converter class, respectively, based on the specified communication parameters; instantiating the identified specific adaptor, communicator, and converter classes; adding the identified specific adaptor, communicator, and converter classes to an instance list; and effecting the communication between the auto-id component and the auto-id node using the instantiated generic adaptor, communicator, and converter classes and the instantiated specific adaptor, communicator, and converter classes. REJECTIONS R1. Claims 16,18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 32 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of U.S. 6,735,630 B1 ("Gelvin") in view of U.S. 5,872,926 ("Levac") and further in view of U.S. 5,675,738 ("Suzuki"). R2. Claims 22, 24, 31 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of over Gelvin, Levac and Suzuki in view of U.S. 2002/0059425 A1 ("Belfiore"). Appeal 2010-005702 Application 11/027,691 4 R3. Claims 25 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of over Gelvin, Levac and Suzuki in view of U.S. 2006/0075159 Al ("Gesquiere"). R4. Claims 17, 19, 27, 29, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of over Gelvin, Levac and Suzuki in view of U.S. 2002/0129353 Al ("Williams"). GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of the obviousness rejections of claims 16-19 and 21-36 on the basis of independent claims 16, 26, and 35. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). ANALYSIS A. Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested "instantiating a generic adaptor class for effecting communication between the auto-id node and the auto-id component, the generic adaptor implementing functionality common to multiple different, specific adaptor classes stored in a class repository of the integration layer," within the meaning of claim 16 and the commensurate language of claims 26 and 35? Appellants contend: [T]he proposed combination is still deficient in that it does not disclose or render obvious at least the feature of instantiating a generic adaptor class for effecting communication between the auto-id node and the auto-id component, the generic adaptor implementing functionality common to multiple different, specific adaptor classes stored in a class repository of the Appeal 2010-005702 Application 11/027,691 5 integration layer. More specifically, neither the final Office action nor the Examiner's Answer address this feature of the independent claims. (Reply Br. 4; See App. Br. 11, emphasis added). Appellants' argument is persuasive because neither the Examiner's Answer nor the Final Office Action addresses the claim 16 limitation at issue. Specifically, the "Response to Argument" section of the Answer is silent regarding Appellants' contention. (Ans. 11-13). Moreover, we find no evidence of any teaching of instantiation of any defined class in the cited references (i.e., as occurs at run time when one or more instances of a defined class (objects) are allocated memory space). For at least this reason, we are persuaded on this record that the Examiner erred. B. Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested "instantiating a generic communicator class for effecting a data transport aspect of the communication between the auto-id node and the auto-id component, . . . and the generic communicator class being a component of the generic adaptor class," within the meaning of claim 16 and the commensurate language of claims 26 and 35? Appellants contend: Suzuki is directed to a video on-demand (VOB) service that enables individual request terminals to obtain desired video information from any of a plurality of video information server apparatuses by providing a single remote control program. Accordingly, col. 13, ll. 49-51 provides: the request form the request terminals are generic request compatible with all of the plurality of Appeal 2010-005702 Application 11/027,691 6 different type of video information server apparatuses. This passage however, requires context to understand the meaning thereof. More specifically, "the requests" are generated from a plurality of requests terminals which request desire video information from a plurality of types of information (col. 13, ll. 32-34). Given this context, or any other context for that matter, the Examiner's cited passage does not even remotely correspond to instantiating a communicator class to effect communication between a node and connecting thereto. (App. Br. 16, emphasis added). The Examiner disagrees: [T]he idea of instantiating a communicator class or a converter class is similar to the idea of representing by a particular instance, in particular through a specific apparatus for a particular request as disclosed by Suzuki et al. in [Column 4, lines 47-53]. (Ans. 13). Appellants' arguments are persuasive because Suzuki's sending "requests" would not have reasonably taught or suggested the claimed "instantiating a generic communicator class." This is because the "requests" are merely information transmitted to Suzuki's video information servers system. (Suzuki col. 13, ll. 31-51; See Fig. 1). In contrast, the claimed "instantiating a generic communicator class" creates an instance of a class (See Spec. 22:23 - 23:14) which one skilled in the art would understand to be an “object.†Furthermore, the Examiner does not allege that the other cited references cure this defect. For this reason, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appeal 2010-005702 Application 11/027,691 7 Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 16 and of independent claims 26 and 35, which recite commensurate language. We also reverse the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 17-19, 21-25, 27-34, and 36, which depend from claims 16, 26, and 35. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 16-19 and 21-36 under §103. ORDER REVERSED peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation