Ex Parte Bross et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 11, 2011

10495633 (B.P.A.I. May. 11, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WOLFGANG BROSS and MARKUS ROSSMANN
____________

Appeal 2009-014425
Application 10/495,633
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU
R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014425
Application 10/495,633

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 1-24, 26, and 28-29 which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a computer-based tax
processing system (Spec. 3:1-2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter of appeal.

1. A computer-based transaction tax processing system for
providing transaction tax services, wherein the transaction tax
processing system can be called by a calling application, the
transaction tax processing system comprising a process and
communication layer and two or more of the following tax-related
basic service modules:
i) a transaction tax calculation service,
ii) a transaction tax logging service,
iii) a transaction tax content service,
iv) a transaction tax compliance service,
v) a transaction tax filing service,
vi) a transaction tax database for storing selected information
which is related to transaction events;
and further comprising:
a first interface between the process and communication layer
and the basic service modules,
a second interface between the process and communication layer
and the calling application,
wherein the process and communication layer is arranged to
receive a transaction tax processing request with transaction data
Appeal 2009-014425
Application 10/495,633

3
from the calling application via the second interface,
wherein the process and communication layer, in response to tile
request received from the calling application, is arranged to call one
or more of the basic service modules via the first interface over a
network using a Web protocol, the process and communication layer
controlling the call depending on the transaction tax processing
request, and
wherein the basic service modules are configured to exchange
data including parameters in Extensible Markup Language (XML)
format.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Gryglewicz US 6,993,502 B1 Jan. 31, 2006
Skeen US 7,284,196 B2 Oct. 16, 2007

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-24, 26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gryglewicz and Skeen.

THE ISSUES
The issue turns on whether it would have been obvious to modify
Gryglewicz to exchange data in XML format as disclosed by Skeen in order
to meet the argued claim limitations.

Appeal 2009-014425
Application 10/495,633

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported
at least by a preponderance of the evidence:1
FF1. Gryglewicz has disclosed a system for computing and collecting taxes
such as sales and use taxes and also that the system can be used for Internet
sales (Abstract).
FF2. Skeen has disclosed a framework for accomplishing vocabulary based
data transformations for interfacing systems of disparate data formats
(Abstract).
FF3. Skeen has disclosed that Internet and extensible markup language
(XML) have created forms of data interchange that are less expensive and
lower the barrier for data interchange in e-commerce. Many newer e-
commerce systems use XML. XML messages are easy to read and debug
and its simplicity permits persons with limited training to develop and
maintain XML based applications. (Col. 1: 21-35).

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
“Gryglewicz makes no reference to using XML to perform communication
between tax-related service modules” and that the combination with Skeen is
improper (Br. 7). The Appellants argue that while Skeen refers to XML for
electronic commerce, there is no hint to apply it to tax processing systems
and that impermissible hindsight has been used (Br. 8).

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2009-014425
Application 10/495,633

5
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the combination of the
cited prior art is proper for the predictable result of transforming data
formats between Internet applications (Ans. 5, 12-13).
We agree with the Examiner. The cited claim limitation in dispute
requires that “the basic service modules are configured to exchange data
including parameters in Extensible Markup Language (XML) format”.
Here, Gryglewicz has disclosed a system for computing and collecting taxes
for Internet sales (FF1). Skeen has disclosed that extensible markup
language (XML) has created forms of data interchange that are less
expensive and lower the barrier for data interchange in e-commerce, that
XML is used in many newer e-commerce systems, and that XML is also
simple to use (FF3). The modification of the tax computation and collection
system over the Internet of Gryglewicz to use XML language as taught by
Skeen is considered an obvious, predictable combination of familiar
elements for the advantage of having a low-cost cost, easy to use system
and to be able to interact with data sources which used XML. For these
reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
With regard to claims 12-13, the use such a combined system would
serve as a “standardized interface data model” and meet the argued claim
limitation so the rejection of these claims is sustained as well. With regard
to claims 24, 26, and 28 the use of “two basic service modules” would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if it was desired to have the
two service functions perform independently or be obtained from different
vendors. The Appellants have provided essentially the same arguments for
the remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the
same reasons given above.
Appeal 2009-014425
Application 10/495,633

6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24, 26, and 28-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gryglewicz and Skeen is sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24, 26, and 28-29 is sustained.

AFFIRMED

MP