ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 2, 2021

2019006688 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021)

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. 13/872,899 04/29/2013 John Leinaweaver ORA130423USNP-403222-0076 8557 58019 7590 04/02/2021 Miller Nash Graham & Dunn - Oracle 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 111 SW Fifth Avenue PORTLAND, OR 97204 EXAMINER BRAGDON, REGINALD GLENWOOD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2139 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2021 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com patdocketing@millernash.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN LEINAWEAVER, JEFFEREY STEIDL, QIANG LIU, DONGBO XIAO, LILY HE, and VIVEKANANDA MAGANTY Appeal 2019-006688 Application 13/872,899 Technology Center 2100 Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle International Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006688 Application 13/872,899 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a system and method for clustered transactional interoperability of proprietary non-standard features of a messaging provider using a connector mechanism. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-controlled method of handling proprietary features in a messaging system, comprising: receiving an object from a requesting application at a resource adapter on an application server; determining, at the resource adapter, that the requesting application, through the object, invokes at least one proprietary feature of a messaging system provider, wherein the at least one proprietary feature is a process unique to the messaging system provider and does not exist on the resource adapter; accessing, using the resource adapter, a wrapper library and wrapping the object in an appropriate wrapper for the messaging system to produce a wrapped object, the wrapper to preserve the at least one proprietary feature; transmitting the wrapped object from the resource adapter to the messaging system such that the at least one proprietary feature is preserved; and updating a configuration file for the resource adapter such that the resource adapter will recognize the at least one proprietary feature without having to be recompiled, wherein the configuration file documents existing wrappers and is updated in real time to include new wrappers, when the new wrappers are generated. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2019-006688 Application 13/872,899 3 REFERENCES2 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lee US 7,418,711 B1 Aug. 26, 2008 Tankov US 7,657,658 B2 Feb. 2, 2010 Andreeva US 7,739,699 B2 June 15, 2010 Goetz US 7,752,484 B2 July 6, 2010 Borgendale US 8,695,015 B2 Apr. 8, 2014 Gangadharan US 2005/0060169 A1 Mar. 17, 2005 REJECTIONS Claims 1–6 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for lack of written description. Final Act. 2. Claims 1–6 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andreeva, Tankov, Lee, Goetz, Borgendale, and Gangadharan. Final Act. 4. ISSUES First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the Specification does not support the recitation of “wrappers,” as recited in claim 1? Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Borgendale and Gangadharan teach or suggest “updating a configuration file for the resource adapter such that the resource adapter will recognize the at least one proprietary feature without having to be recompiled, wherein the configuration file documents existing wrappers and is updated in real time to include new wrappers, when the new wrappers are generated,” as recited in claim 1? 2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. Appeal 2019-006688 Application 13/872,899 4 ANALYSIS First Issue The Examiner rejects claim 1 for lack of written description. Final Act. 3.3 The Examiner finds claim 1 recites “wherein the configuration file documents existing wrappers and is updated in real time to include new wrappers, when new wrappers are generated,” but does not disclose multiple wrappers in the Specification. The Examiner notes the Specification describes generating a single new wrapper, but does not disclose that when updating the configuration file in real time, multiple wrappers can be generated. Final Act. 3 (citing Spec. ¶ 27). Appellant contends the rejection is in error because the Examiner “has cited only one paragraph of Applicant’s specification to support this rejection, and not looked at the application as a whole.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues multiple wrappers are supported because although portions of the Specification “discuss a singular wrapper for purposes of illustration, the disclosure is directed to a messaging system, which inherently may receive multiple messages.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further asserts that because of the nature of the messaging system, a person of ordinary skill in 3 We note the record creates some confusion as to the status of the written description rejection. Appellant filed a response after final action on January 29, 2019 that included amendments to the claims. In the Advisory Action mailed February 7, 2019, the Examiner placed a check mark in box number 5, which stated “Applicant[’]s reply has overcome the following rejection(s): 35 U.S.C. [§] 112 rejection of claims 1–6.” Adv. Act. 1. However, based on the argument presented in the Appeal Brief and the response in the Examiner’s Answer, it appears both the Examiner and Appellant consider the written description rejection to be maintained, and we will proceed accordingly. Appeal 2019-006688 Application 13/872,899 5 the art would have readily understood “that multiple wrappers are located in the system and that multiple new wrappers may be generated based on the multiple messages.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further contends that possession is shown because “multiple portions of the specification discuss a plurality of wrappers, including, but not limited to, paragraphs [0035], [0045][,] and [0047].” Appeal Br. 6–7. We agree with Appellant. The limitation at issue recites in full: updating a configuration file for the resource adapter such that the resource adapter will recognize the at least one proprietary feature without having to be recompiled, wherein the configuration file documents existing wrappers and is updated in real time to include new wrappers, when the new wrappers are generated. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix). Viewed in light of the Specification, we agree with Appellant that in the context of a messaging system, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that multiple messages would, as a matter of course, be transmitted and processed within the system. The scenarios described in paragraph 27 of the Specification would, therefore, be understood to repeatedly occur as messages are processed. Because the situation would repeatedly occur, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a configuration file could document multiple existing wrappers from the wrapper library, which provides the requisite support for “wherein the configuration file documents existing wrappers.” We further agree with Appellant that the description in the Specification indicates that in the context of the messaging system, additional wrappers may be repeatedly generated. The paragraphs cited by Appellant indicate that the inventors contemplated that multiple wrappers would exist for a particular resource adapter/JMS interface and that multiple updates may occur as the Appeal 2019-006688 Application 13/872,899 6 result of those multiple existing wrappers, when updates occur. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 35 (“If the customer has never generated wrappers for this provider’s interface”). We, therefore, agree with Appellant that the argued limitation is supported by the Specification as filed, and we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).4 Second Issue The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Andreeva, Tankov, Lee, Goetz, Borgendale, and Gangadharan. Final Act. 4. Relevant to this issue, the Examiner finds Borgendale and Gangadharan teach the “updating” limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 11–14 (citing Borgendale col. 20, ll. 23–33; col. 6, ll. 6–24 and Gangadharan ¶¶ 42–44). More specifically, the Examiner finds Borgendale’s update to its feed adapter configuration policy corresponds to the recited “updating a configuration file for the resource adapter.” Final Act. 11 (citing Borgendale col. 20, ll. 23–33). The Examiner additionally finds Borgendale’s description of “the ability to reconfigure a feed adapter without recompiling the software installed on the feed adapter” (Borgendale col. 20, ll. 32–33) teaches “such that the resource adapter will recognize the at least one proprietary feature without having to be recompiled.” The Examiner further finds that the conversion function libraries documented in the feed adapter configuration policy teach “wherein the configuration file documents existing wrappers.” Final Act. 12 (citing Borgendale col. 6, ll. 6–24). 4 Although we reverse the written description rejection, we observe that the amendment submitted in connection with the After Final response would be more clearly supported by the Specification. Appeal 2019-006688 Application 13/872,899 7 The Examiner concedes that Borgendale does not teach the remainder of the “updating” limitation—which recites “and is updated in real time to include new wrappers, when the new wrappers are generated.” Final Act. 12. The Examiner introduces Gangadharan to address this deficiency. The Examiner finds Gangadharan’s updating of a RAR file at run time to add an interface teaches a configuration file that “is updated in real time to include new wrappers, when the new wrappers are generated.” Final Act. 13–14 (citing Gangadharan ¶¶ 42–44). Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because Gangadharan merely teaches using a deployment tool to modify a generic resource adapter to add an interface using a graphical user interface. Appeal Br. 8 (“Gangadharan teaches generating a customized resource adapter archive file (CRAR) on a deployment tool based on a generic resource adapter.”). Appellant asserts that only after the modification is complete, is a new CRAR generated which can be deployed to the application server. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Gangadharan ¶ 45). Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s reliance on Gangadharan is misplaced because “Gangadharan performs a traditional technique of using a deployment tool to update the resource adapter, which must then be redeployed [to] all of the application servers – the exact scenario the currently claimed invention is preventing.” Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, “if Gangadharan was combined with the remaining references, one would still not arrive at the claimed invention because Gangadharan specifically teaches the use of a deployment tool and does not make any changes to configuration files on the resource adapter.” Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2019-006688 Application 13/872,899 8 We are persuaded of error. The “updating” limitation recites that the configuration file for the resource adapter is updated. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix) (“updating a configuration file for the resource adapter”). The updating of this configuration file recites two requirements for this update: (1) that the update to the configuration file allows the resource adapter to “recognize the at least one proprietary feature without having to be recompiled,” and (2) the configuration file “is updated in real time to include new wrappers, when the new wrappers are generated.” As noted above, the Examiner cites Borgendale for the first “updating” requirement. We discern no error in that finding. However, the Examiner relies on Gangadharan for the second “updating” requirement. We agree with Appellant that what is updated in Gangadharan cannot reasonably be characterized as “a configuration file for the resource adapter.” At best, Gangadharan teaches run-time updates which are made on a deployment tool and delivered directly to the resource adapter itself. However, there is no indication in Gangadharan that any configuration file for its resource adapter is present, or that if any configuration file is present, the configuration file is updated. As such, we are persuaded that even if properly combinable with Borgendale, Gangadharan does not account for Borgendale’s deficiencies. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, nor of the remaining claims which depend therefrom. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. Appeal 2019-006688 Application 13/872,899 9 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6 112 Written description 1–6 1–6 103(a) Andreeva, Tankov, Lee, Goetz, Borgendale, Gangadharan 1–6 Overall Outcome 1–6 REVERSED