Ex Parte Barrett

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2011

10887971 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KEVIN R. BARRETT
____________
Appeal 2009-011596
Application 10/887,9711
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on July 9, 2004. This application claims priority from provisional
application 60/486,710, filed July 10, 2003. The real party in interest is
Computer Associates Think, Inc. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2009-011596
Application 10/887,971

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-52. (App. Br. 5.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method, system, and computer recording
medium for centralizing web application interaction and, in particular, to a
single point of entry for web applications. (Spec. 1: 12-13, 3: 16-19.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method for centralizing web application
interaction, comprising:
handling a request, using a central point of entry, from a
remote application;
determining a local application suitable for processing
the request (the “suitable application”);
handing out the request to the local application
determined to be suitable for processing the request; and
using the central point of entry to control user interaction
with a defined set of local applications, wherein:
the central point of entry determines the suitable
application for processing the request using a nature of
the request; and
the suitable application is selected from the
defined set of local applications.
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Appeal 2009-011596
Application 10/887,971

3
Moisa et al. US 2004/0030992 A1 Feb. 12, 2004
(hereinafter “Moisa”) (filed Aug. 6, 2002)
Campbell US 2004/0148372 A1 Jul. 29, 2004
(filed Jan. 27, 2003)
Simpson et al. US 7,191,448 B2 Mar. 13, 2007
(hereinafter “Simpson”) (filed Aug. 8, 2001)
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1-11 and 14-52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Campbell and Simpson.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Campbell, Simpson, and Moisa.
Appellant’s Contentions2
Appellant contends that Campbell’s disclosure of a tech-user selecting
a management system does not teach or fairly suggest “the central point of
entry determines the suitable application for processing the request using a
nature of the request,” as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 12-13;
Reply Br. 6-7.) Appellant also argues that Campbell’s disclosure of a web
server that merely forwards the commands from the tech-user to a resident
management agent residing on the user selected managed system does not
teach or fairly suggest the “central point of entry,” as claimed. (App. Br. 13-
14; Reply Br. 7-8.) Further, Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s
position that Campbell’s web server and corresponding search system teach
or fairly suggest the disputed limitation. (Reply Br. 4.) Appellant alleges
that Campbell’s web server does not perform the same functions as the

2 With respect to each claim before us on appeal, arguments which Appellant
could have made but chose not to make have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii); see also In re Watts,
354 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2009-011596
Application 10/887,971

4
claimed “central point of entry.” (Reply Br. 4.) Rather, Appellant contends
that Campbell’s web server merely utilizes the managed system database in
order to call a single application by matching the management system name
with the management system’s network address. (Id.)
The Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Campbell’s disclosure of utilizing a search
engine associated with a web server to find and select a management system,
in conjunction with Simpson’s disclosure of re-directing to other web
services based on the nature of a request, teaches or fairly suggests the
disputed limitation. (Ans. 14-15.)

II. ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Campbell and Simpson renders independent claim 1
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether the proffered
combination teaches or fairly suggests “the central point of entry determines
the suitable application for processing the request using a nature of the
request,” as recited in independent claim 1.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (hereinafter “FF”) are shown by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Campbell
FF 1. Campbell discloses that after a tech-user is granted access to the
application web server, the tech-user’s first task is to find and select a
managed system (process 300 in Campbell’s Figure 2). (¶ [0036].)
Appeal 2009-011596
Application 10/887,971

5
Campbell discloses a search engine which allows the tech-user to search for
a managed system by entering one of the following: the managed system’s
name, portions of the managed system’s name, or the managed system’s
network name. (¶ [0037].)
FF 2. After searching for a managed system, Campbell discloses
displaying the search results as list of managed system names. (¶ [0038].)
Campbell discloses that the tech-user locates and selects a managed system
by clicking on the corresponding web page displayed by the tech-user’s
browser. (Id.) After selecting a managed system from the list of search
results, Campbell discloses that the application web server presents to the
tech-user a dynamically created menu for the selected managed system. (¶
[0039].) Campbell discloses that this menu is a customized list of
commands or actions for the selected managed system. (Id.)
Simpson
FF 3. Simpson discloses that a user employs a web browser to
navigate to a webmail service and accesses a uniform resource locator
(hereinafter “URL”) corresponding to an email message of the user. (Col.
18, ll. 59-63.) Further, via the web content of his or her browser indirectly
contacting a graphics store, Simpson discloses that the user might request
that the first page of the email message be reformatted, such that it can be
printed in the form of a jpeg image. (Id. at ll. 63-66.) Since the email
message is actually stored in another network server, such as an internet
message access protocol (hereinafter “IMAP”) service, Simpson discloses
that the graphics store contacts the IMAP server using the information
embedded within the URL reference and obtains the user’s email message.
(Id. at l. 66–col. 19, l. 6.) Moreover, Simpson discloses formatting the email
Appeal 2009-011596
Application 10/887,971

6
message for printing utilizing a service available at the graphics store and,
utilizing a different service at the graphics store, generating a bitmap of the
first page. (Col. 19, ll. 6-11.)

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “the central point of entry
determines the suitable application for processing the request using a nature
of the request.”
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Campbell discloses
that a tech-user communicates with an application web server to find and
select a managed system. (FF 1.) Campbell discloses that the application
web server employs a search engine that receives a search request from the
tech-user and displays the search results in a list. (FFs 1-2.) After the tech-
user selects a managed system from the list, Campbell discloses that the
application web server presents the tech-user with a customized list of
commands or actions for the selected managed system. (FF 2.)
We find that that Campbell’s application web server amounts to the
claimed “central point of entry.” That is, we find that Campbell’s
application web server performs similar functions to the claimed “central
point of entry” because it receives and handles all search requests from
respective users, and it hosts multiple applications (i.e., managed systems)
that are suitable for processing a command or action. (See Spec. 27: 9-20.)
Moreover, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated
that Campbell’s application web server is capable of utilizing a search
request submitted by a user in order to determine a managed system that is
Appeal 2009-011596
Application 10/887,971

7
suitable for processing a command or action. Thus, we find that Campbell
teaches or fairly suggests the disputed limitation.
Alternatively, Simpson discloses that a user navigates to a webmail
service utilizing a web browser, accesses a URL corresponding to an email
message, contacts a graphics store via the web content of the web browser,
and requests to reformat the first page of the email message such that it can
be printed as a jpeg image. (FF 3.) Since the email message is actually
stored in an IMAP service, Simpson discloses that the graphics store
contacts the IMAP server using the information embedded within the URL
reference, obtains the user’s email message, formats the email message for
printing, and generates a bitmap of the first page. (Id.)
We find that Simpson’s disclosure of re-directing a user’s web
browser from a graphics store to an IMAP server, such that the user can
obtain and reformat an email message, teaches or fairly suggests directing a
user from a first web service to a second web service based on the nature of
the user’s request. In summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have readily appreciated that Campbell’s application web server is
capable of determining a managed system that is suitable for processing a
command or action by employing Simpson’s method of directing a user to
the appropriate managed system based on the nature of the user’s request.
Thus, we find that the combination of Campbell and Simpson also teaches or
fairly suggests the disputed limitation. It follows that Appellant has not
shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that combination of Campbell
and Simpson renders independent claim 1 unpatentable.

Appeal 2009-011596
Application 10/887,971

8
Claims 2-52
Appellant does not provide separate and distinct arguments for
patentability with respect to independent claims 14, 27, and 40, and
dependent claims 2-13, 15-26, 28-39, and 41-52. (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 8.)
Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as representative of the cited
claims. Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 14, 27, and 40, and dependent claims 2-13,
15-26, 28-39, and 41-52, for the reasons set forth in our discussion of
independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

V. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-52 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-52 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).

AFFIRMED

babc