Ex Parte Beisiegel et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 29, 201110489051 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL BEISIEGAL, JEAN-SEBATIEN MICHEL DELFINO, and PIOTR PRZYBYLSKI ____________________ Appeal 2009-011126 Application 10/489,051 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, THOMAS S. HAHN, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011126 Application 10/489,051 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: Claim 1 1. A computer system communicating with a communications network, said computer system comprising: a) a component server providing services to one or more service components and one or more inbound connectors; b) each of said service components providing application logic; c) said service components providing a set of interfaces to a plurality of computer systems, said set of interfaces independent of middleware hosted by said plurality of computer systems, said inbound connectors in communication with said communications network, said component server and said service components. Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Horn (US 6,192,414 B1) and Colby (US 6,006,264). The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Jorgensen (US 6,452,915 B1) and Ozawa (US 2001/0049718 A1). Appeal 2009-011126 Application 10/489,051 3 Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend in the Appeal Brief 1 that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for numerous reasons. Appellants present over twenty allegations of error in the rejections. Essentially, Appellants argue that (a) the Examiner has erred in fact finding as to every element of every claim, and (b) the Examiner has erred in every rationale for combining the applied references. Issues on Appeal Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-6 and 9-14 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with 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 findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-6 and 9-14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1-6 and 9-14 are not patentable. 1 No Reply Brief was filed. Appeal 2009-011126 Application 10/489,051 4 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-6 and 9-14 are affirmed. 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 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation