Ex Parte Barcia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 10, 2014

11776216 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROLAND BARCIA, KYLE G. BROWN, ROBERT
R. PETERSON, and RACHEL M. REINITZ
____________________

Appeal 2011-012028
Application 11/776,216
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012028
Application 11/776,216
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
14. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to an aspect oriented application of a mediator
in an enterprise service bus (ESB) of a service oriented architected data
processing system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for aspect oriented application of a mediation in an
enterprise service bus (ESB), the method comprising:
installing an aspect in an ESB provided by an application
server executing in memory by at least one processor of a host
computing platform, the aspect referencing at least one
mediation and associating the at least one mediation with at
least one target in the ESB; and
applying the at least one mediation in the aspect to each
associated target in the ESB so that the at least one mediation is
associated with each associated target only once.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mamou
Yao
US 2006/0010195 A1
US 2007/0250482 A1
Jan. 12, 2006
Oct. 25, 2007

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Mamou. Ans. 3.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being unpatentable
over Mamou and Yao. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2011-012028
Application 11/776,216
3
OPINION
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner interpreted Mamou’s aspect
interceptors as providing the recited “mediation.” Ans. 4. The Examiner
draws this conclusion based on the fact that Mamou’s interceptor is capable
of providing the same, or similar, functionality, e.g., encryption,
compression, tracing, and monitoring, as the mediations described in
Appellants’ Specification (p. 3, para. [0006]). Ans. 10-11 (citing Mamou
para. [0410]). However, the fact that two things may serve the same purpose
does not necessarily make those things the same. Mediation, in light of
Appellants’ Specification, would be understood by one skilled in the art as a
process that allows the reconciliation of incompatible protocols, data formats
and interaction patterns. Spec. p. 2, para. [0004]. An interceptor, on the other
hand, need only involve changing the usual processing between components,
for example, by inserting code. Mamou, p. 37, para. [0419]. Thus, while an
interceptor may be used to provide mediation, the mere presence of an
interceptor, without more, does not necessarily mean “mediation” is present.
Accordingly, we must reverse the Examiner’s rejections as being based on
an interpretation of claim terminology that is inconsistent with the one that
those skilled in the art would reach in light of Appellants’ Specification. In
re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

REVERSED
tkl