11171733 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2015)

Ex Parte Carey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 18, 2015

11171733 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/171,733 06/30/2005 James Edward Carey ROC920040210US1 6731 7590 02/19/2015 Grant A. Johnson IBM Corporation Dept. 917 3605 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901-7829 EXAMINER CAO, DIEM K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2196 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/19/2015 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES EDWARD CAREY and SCOTT N. GERARD ___________ Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge CHEN. Concurring Opinion filed by Administrative Patent Judge BAUMEISTER. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–12 and 14–24. Claim 13 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to managing a collection of web services depending on a consumer application’s desired constraints and according to one of multiple policies. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary. It is reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A web service management method for dynamically controlling the selection and redundancy of web service components, comprising: receiving a request for web services; selecting a response handler policy; sending, via a network interface, the request to a first plurality of web service providers according to the response handler policy; and processing responses from the first plurality of web service providers according to the response handler policy to provide a higher service level than from the individual web services. Claims 1–12 and 14–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Akkiraju (US 2003/0191677 Al; Oct. 9, 2003), Maximilien (E. Michael Maximilien & Munindar P. Singh, Toward Automatic Web Services Trust and Selection, PROC. 2ND INT’L. CONF. ON SERVICE ORIENTED COMPUTING 212–21 (2004)), and Liu (Yutu Liu et al., QoS Computation and Policing in Dynamic Web Service Selection, PROC. 13TH INT’L. WORLD WIDE WEB CONF. ON ALTERNATE TRACK PAPERS & POSTERS 61–77 (2004)). Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 3 ANALYSIS Appellants argue (Br. 14) that the combination of Akkiraju, Maximilien, and Liu would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “sending, via a network interface, the request to a first plurality of web service providers according to the response handler policy.” We are unpersuaded. The Examiner found that the business process of Akkiraju for integrating electronic commerce systems corresponds to the limitation “sending, via a network interface, the request to a first plurality of web service providers.” (Ans. 7; see also Final Office Action 2–3.) The Examiner further found that the quality of service (QoS) policies of Maximilien, such that consumer policies are matched to advertised policies, corresponds to the limitation “a response handler policy.” (Ans. 7.) The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to “apply the teaching of Maximilien to the system of Akkiraju, [because] instead of sending the request to all the registered web service[s], the system needs only send the request to selected web services based on the user policy.” (Ans. 7.) We agree with the Examiner. Akkiraju relates to business processes implemented through electronic commerce services, in particular, “to methods for integrating diverse and incompatible electronic commerce systems, such as those that provide for the physical shipment of goods.” (¶ 1.) For example, Akkiraju explains, major shipping services such as United Parcel Service (UPS) or FedEx appear to have no common service interface to allow users/customers (e.g. of shipping services) to easily integrate existing on-line tools. (¶ 4.) Akkiraju explains that “a single user request for services at the user interface Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 4 to the Common Alliance Interface 201 may be split by the Business Process Layer into a plurality of requests, one for each of a plurality of shipping service providers, receivable at the service provider interface, Webservice Interface 214.” (¶ 36.) Akkiraju further explains that “[o]nce the Adaptation Layer 401 receives an XML Request (which might be the aggregation of multiple requests responsive to a lookup for Next Day Air Service by UPS Standard service), it sends these requests to the UPS Server 421 over network 411” (¶ 62) such that responses are aggregated and sent to the requesting B2B application 402 (id.; see also ¶ 70). Thus, Akkiraju teaches the limitation “sending, via a network interface, the request to a first plurality of web service providers.” Maximilien relates to Web services, in particular, “[s]ervice selection . . . determined based on user preferences and business policies.” (Abstract.) In one “use case” scenario of Maximilien involving a B2B (business-to- business) loan service, a car dealership provides financing to potential buyers, such that “the dealership wants to offer various financial options.” (§ 2.1.) Maximilien explains that “[u]sing the business policies and user preferences, the agent selects the most appropriate services and presents the top financial alternatives to the user.” (Id.) Maximilien provides one example of a provider policy, referred to as a quality of service policy (QoSPolicy), which “[c]aptures provider’s advertised QoS policy for a service or set of services.” (§ 3.3.1.) Thus, because Maximilien explains that a user can select the most appropriate services with a QoS policy, Maximilien teaches the limitation “selecting a response handler policy.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the QoS policy of Maximilien with the business processes of Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 5 Akkiraju for integrating electronic commerce systems would improve Akkiraju by providing the ability to search for the most appropriate services. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). This combination would result in utilizing the QoS policy of Maximilien when sending a request to the business process of Akkiraju for integrating electronic commerce systems. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that modifying Akkiraju to incorporate the QoS policy Maximilien would have been obvious. Appellants argue that “Maximilien teaches a different way of identifying a single, ‘best’ service (i.e., the result of findBestService) and then sending the request for web services to that one, specific service” and “Maximilien makes this determination at runtime; and does so by referencing the QoS annotations in the UDDI registry.” (Br. 14.) However, the Examiner cited Akkiraju, rather than Maximilien for teaching the limitation “sending, via a network interface, the request to a first plurality of web service providers.” (Ans. 7.) Furthermore, the Examiner cited Maximilien for the general concept of using business policies and user preferences to select the most appropriate services, rather than the dynamic configuration of an application at runtime. (See id.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Akkiraju, Maximilien, and Liu would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “sending, via a network interface, the request Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 6 to a first plurality of web service providers according to the response handler policy.” Appellants also argue (Br. 15) that the combination of over Akkiraju, Maximilien, and Liu would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “processing responses from the first plurality of web service providers according to the response handler policy to provide a higher service level than from the individual web services.” We are unpersuaded by this argument, as well. The Examiner found that the customer preference of Liu, when searching for a service, corresponds to the limitation “processing responses from the first plurality of web service providers according to the response handler policy to provide a higher service level than from the individual web services.” (Ans. 7–8.) The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to “apply the teaching of Liu to the system of Akkiraju and Maximilien” such that “Liu would teach processing responses from the plurality of web services (as taught by Maximilien) according to the user policy (price or service sensitive), thus, providing the higher service level than from the individual web services is provided.” (Ans. 8.) We agree with the Examiner. Liu relates to a “dynamic QoS computation model for web services selection through implementation of and experimentation with a QoS registry.” (Abstract.) Liu explains that “the customer can specify whether the search for a particular type of service should be price or service sensitive.” (§ 3.) For example, “[a] price sensitive search will return a list of service providers who offers the lowest price” or “[a] service sensitive search will return a list of service providers with the best rated services.” Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 7 (Id.) Thus, Liu teaches the limitation “processing responses from the first plurality of web service providers according to the response handler policy to provide a higher service level than from the individual web services.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating QoS criteria of Liu with Akkiraju and Maximilien would improve Akkiraju and Maximilien by providing the ability to customize a search for a particular type of service. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. This combination would result in utilizing the QoS criteria of Liu when sending a request to the business process of Akkiraju for integrating electronic commerce systems, as modified by Maximilien. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that modifying Akkiraju and Maximilien to incorporate the QoS criteria of Liu would have been obvious. Appellants argue that “when a user of Liu’s system specifies a policy, the registry is being searched for results, and those results are processed” and “[t]his [is] different than sending requests to a plurality of service providers according to the response handler policy … and processing responses…according to the response handler policy.” (Br. 15.) However, the Examiner cited Akkiraju, rather than Liu for teaching the limitation “sending, via a network interface, the request to a first plurality of web service providers.” (Ans. 8.) Furthermore, the Examiner cited Liu for the general concept of a customer specifying whether the search for a particular type of service should be price or service sensitive, rather than searching a QoS registry. (See id.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Akkiraju, Maximilien, and Liu would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “processing responses from the first plurality Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 8 of web service providers according to the response handler policy to provide a higher service level than from the individual web services.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2–11 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 12 and 16 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. (See Br. 10–16.) We therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 16, as well as dependent claims 14, 15, and 17–24, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 and 14–24 is 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 msc UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES EDWARD CAREY and SCOTT N. GERARD ___________ Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring. I agree with the Majority that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness, even under Appellants’ narrow interpretation of the claims. Appellants contend that the claim limitation “selecting a response handler policy” requires “dynamically controlling the selection and redundancy of web service components” (Br. 13), whereas the cited references only teach static UDDI registries (Br. 12–16). However, the Examiner points to teachings of Maximilien and Liu that the Examiner finds to teach dynamically controlling the selection and redundancy of web service components. See Ans. 7 (“Liu teaches a method that allows the user [to] search for a service and [enables the user] to specify whether the search for a particular type of service should be price or service sensitive”) (citing Liu, p 70, Section 3); Ans. 8 (“Maximilien can be modified to have extra constraint, for example, to include price or service sensitive to the policy”)). Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 2 Appellants fail to sufficiently explain why such teachings do not constitute dynamic control. I write separately, though, for two reasons. First, I am not convinced whether “a response handler policy” must be interpreted as narrowly as urged by Appellants. As noted above, Appellants argue that the references do not teach dynamic control of the web service components (Br. 13), but Appellants are relying on the Specification for this requirement (id. at 12– 13). I find no express definition that would clearly and unambiguously limit a “response handler policy” to a handler policy that dynamically controls the web service components. Furthermore, the claims do not recite dynamically selecting a response handler policy or recite modifying a selected response handler policy. That is, the claims appear to be broad enough to read on a method of statically controlling the web service components, such as the methods accomplished by prior-art UDDI registries. Initially establishing a static policy, then, satisfies the claims’ express requirement of “selecting a response handler policy.” The second reason I write separately is because I would not have addressed the question of whether the cited prior art references can be reasonably combined. See Majority Op. 5, 7. While Appellants do “submit that it would not have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine these teachings” (Br. 15), Appellants do not set forth any substantive reasons to support this conclusory argument (Br. 12–16). In fact, Appellants acknowledge that the references “are admittedly in the field of the current invention” (Br. 12) and that “[t]he references, when combined, teach nothing more than traditional Appeal 2012-009998 Application 11/171,733 3 UDDI with minor modifications” (id). Appellants even reiterate this latter point: Again, the references merely teach minor modifications to UDDI, and therefore do not render obvious the techniques claimed by Applicant herein. Missing from each of the references is the common thread in each of the elements of the independent claims; namely that a response handler policy is selected, requests are sent to a plurality of web service providers according to the response handler policy, and responses are processed according to the response handler policy. Br. 15. Reading the Brief as a whole, I understand Appellants’ argument to be, in actuality, that while the references potentially may be combined generally, insufficient motivation exists to combine the references specifically in a manner that would produce a system for dynamically controlling the selection and redundancy of web service components. This contention is more accurately characterized as an argument that none of the references, alone or in combination, teaches certain claim features—not an argument that a lack of motivation exists to combine the references.