Ex Parte Beisiegel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2011

10489051 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2011)

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