Ex Parte Burger

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 16, 2011

10409234 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHEL C. BURGER
_____________

Appeal 2009-007644
Application 10/409,234
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR.,
and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

App
App

claim

of re
[003
devi
regis
servi
eal 2009-0
lication 10
Appellan
s 1-20. W
We reve
Appellan
Figure 1
Appellan
gistering n
9], [0042]
ces and/or
ter with a
ce sends a
07644
/409,234
ST
t appeals
e have ju
rse.
t’s Figure
2C shows
t’s Figure
etwork de
, [0002]; c
services (S
context (S
n event to
ATEMEN
under 35 U
risdiction u
INV
12C is rep
an event r
the pres
12C and c
vices and/
laim 1) an
pec. ¶ [00
pec. ¶ [004
the contex

2
T OF TH
.S.C. § 13
nder 35 U
ENTION
roduced b
edistribute
ent invent
laimed in
or services
d commun
44]; claim
3]; claim
t (¶ [0044
E CASE
4(a) from
.S.C. § 6(

elow:
d to entiti
ion.
vention ar
with a co
icating wi
1). Devi
s 1, 2). A
]; Fig. 12B
the final r
b).
es accordin
e directed
ntext (Spe
th the netw
ces or serv
registered
). An “ev
ejection o

g to
to method
c. ¶¶
ork
ices
device or
ent” is
f
s
Appeal 2009-007644
Application 10/409,234

3
“transmitting information to/from one component to another, or for one
component to call a method on another component” (¶ [0064]). The context
broadcasts the event to the other registered devices and services (Fig. 12C;
Spec. ¶ [0044]; claim 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method comprising:
registering a plurality of entities;
receiving an event from one or more of said plurality of entities; and
broadcasting said event to said plurality of entities.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Pace US 2003/0101223 A1 May 29, 2003
Alumbaugh US 2003/0172368 A1 Sep. 11, 2003
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Alumbaugh.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Alumbaugh in view of Pace.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in determining that Alumbaugh teaches the
limitation of “broadcasting said event to said plurality of entities” as recited
in claim 1?
Appeal 2009-007644
Application 10/409,234

4
2. Did the Examiner err in determining that Alumbaugh teaches the
limitation of “registering said m-devices” as recited in claim 12 and
similarly recited in claim 17?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence:
1. Alumbaugh states “[f]or example, a Desktop Client component may
want to know when a particular job has been completed. The component
would register interest for a ‘job completion’ event for a specific user” (¶
[0204]).
2. Alumbaugh states
[t]he system uses both push and pull methods of notifications.
Notifications can be persistent, or stored, rather than transient.
This means that a registered component receiving a notification
does not have to be online at the time of the notification to
receive the event. The component can register interest for a
particular notification, disconnect from the system, reconnect at
a later time, and receive any outstanding events
(id.).
3. Alumbaugh teaches that “Jini provides a way for servers to register
their services (with Jini)” (¶ [0206]).
4. Que’s Computer User’s Dictionary defines device as “any hardware
component or peripheral, such as a printer, modem, monitor, or mouse, that
can receive and/or send data (p. 143 (Que Corporation 1990)).
5. Alumbaugh teaches that the desktop client is a full desktop client
application (¶ [0155]).

Appeal 2009-007644
Application 10/409,234

5
ANALYSIS
1. Analysis with respect to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Alumbaugh
Appellant argues (Br. 18-19) that Alumbaugh does not teach the
limitation of “broadcasting said event to said plurality of entities” as recited
in claim 1. Appellant argues (Br. 19) that in Alumbaugh paragraph [0204],
the request for a “job completion” event is read by other services and,
therefore, does not disclose the limitation of “broadcasting said event to said
plurality of entities.”
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Claim 1 recites the
following steps: “receiving an event . . . ;” and “broadcasting said event”
(emphases added). Both claim steps involve the same “event.” The
Examiner reasons (Ans. 10) that the claimed “an event” in the receiving step
of claim 1 is met by the Alumbaugh’s (a) “interest for a job completion”
event (FF 1). The Examiner also reasons (Ans. 12) that the “said event” in
the broadcasting claim step is met by Alumbaugh’s (b) “notification” of job
completion event (FF 2). However, in attempting to meet the one “event”
recited in claim 1, the Examiner erred by relying on two different “events”
from Alumbaugh: (a) the “interest for a job completion” event and (b) the
“notification” of job completion (FF 1, 2).
For this reason we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim
1 and of claims 2-11, which depend from claim 1.

2. Analysis with respect to claims 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Alumbaugh
Appellant argues (Br. 30-31) that Alumbaugh does not teach the
limitation of “registering said m-devices” as recited in claim 12 and
Appeal 2009-007644
Application 10/409,234

6
similarly recited in claim 17. Appellant contends (Br. 30) that Alumbaugh’s
services are not the same as Appellant’s claimed devices.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relies
(Ans. 20) upon Alumbaugh paragraph [0206] that states the “Jini provides a
way for servers to register their services (with Jini)” (FF 3). However, the
sentence the Examiner cites states that services are registered, not that the
servers are registered. We agree with Appellant that the claimed device is
not met by Alumbaugh’s services. The plain meaning of “devices” is that
devices are hardware (FF 4), not software services. Therefore, the Examiner
has not established that Alumbaugh’s registering services teaches the
limitation of “registering said m-devices” as recited in claim 12 and
similarly recited in claim 17.
The Examiner also reasons (Ans. 21) that Alumbaugh (¶ [0204])
discloses that desktop client components can register interest in a particular
notification. The Examiner also finds (Ans. 21) that Alumbaugh’s desktop
client components are devices because the claimed “devices” should be read
broadly. We do not agree. As stated above, we find that the plain meaning
of “devices” is that devices are hardware, not software (FF 4). Furthermore,
Alumbaugh describes desktop clients as applications, not hardware (FF 5).
Therefore, Alumbaugh’s desktop client components are parts of
applications, not hardware. Consequently, the Examiner has not established
that Alumbaugh’s desktop client components that register interest
correspond to the limitation of “registering said m-devices” as recited in
claim 12 and similarly recited in claim 17 because Alumbaugh’s desktop
client application components do not correspond to the claimed “devices.”
Appeal 2009-007644
Application 10/409,234

7
For these reasons we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 12 and of claims 13-16 that depend from claim 12. We will also not
sustain the rejections of claim 17 that has similar limitation as claim 12 and
claims 18-20, which depend from claim 17.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner erred in determining that Alumbaugh teaches the
limitation of “broadcasting said event to said plurality of entities” as recited
in claim 1.
2. The Examiner erred in determining that Alumbaugh teaches the
limitation of “registering said m-devices” as recited in claim 12 and
similarly recited in claim 17.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc