Ex Parte Chang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2017

13848836 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)

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.
13/848,836 03/22/2013 Ku G. Chang RSW920120160U S1 (794) 7417
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
PATEL, CHIRAG R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KU G. CHANG
Appeal 2017-004226
Application 13/848,836
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, BETH Z. SHAW, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-004226
Application 13/848,836
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 6—15. Claims 1—5 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to managing task object state utilizing a
reliable messaging model. Spec., Title. Claim 6, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter with a disputed limitation
emphasized in italics:
6. A workflow management data processing system configured
for managing task object state utilizing a reliable messaging
model, the system comprising:
a local server comprising memory and at least one
processor, and a remote server also comprising memory and at
least one processor, the local and remote servers being
communicatively coupled to one another over a computer
communications network;
a workflow of task objects executing in the memory of the
local server, each of the task objects comprising a task object
state; and,
a task object state management module executing in the
memory of the local server, the task object state management
module comprising program code enabled to determine from a
reliable messaging protocol used to transmit a launch request for
one of the task objects to the remote server, whether or not the
launch request has failed, and, responsive to a determination that
the launch request has failed, to transmit a test request to the
remote server using a protocol other than the reliable messaging
protocol and to set the task object state as failed only upon
determining that the remote server responds to the test request.
2
Appeal 2017-004226
Application 13/848,836
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wookey US 2003/0177259 A1 Sept. 18, 2003
Xiao US 2008/0263221 A1 Oct. 23, 2008
Cohen US 7,562,147 B1 July 14, 2009
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 6—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Xiao, Cohen, and Wookey. Final Act. 3—10.
RELATED DECISION
Appeal No. 2017-004228 (App. No. 13/872,118) (Examiner
Reversed).1
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4—11)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—6), the issue presented on appeal is whether
the prior art teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of transmitting a test
request to a remote server in response determining that a launch request has
failed.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 6 and
1 A Decision in connection with Appeal No. 2017-004228 is rendered
contemporaneously with the instant Decision.
3
Appeal 2017-004226
Application 13/848,836
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xiao, Cohen, and
Wookey. We agree with Appellant’s conclusions as to this rejection of the
claims.
The Examiner finds Xiao teaches the limitations of claim 6 up until
the disputed limitation for which the Examiner relies on the teachings of
Cohen with the Wookey reference applied for a subsequent, final limitation.
According to the Examiner Cohen’s client’s transmission of an http request
to a web proxy which then forwards the request to a server teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Final Act. 4. Appellant contends
Cohen merely describes that a HTTP request is sent to a web
proxy. In other words, there is no teaching in Cohen that the
sending of the HTTP request is performed responsive to
anything, let alone in response to determining the failure of a
launch request for a task object. As such, Cohen indeed does not
account for the claimed aspect of “in response to a determination
that the launch request has failed, transmitting a test request to
the remote server using a protocol other than the reliable
messaging protocol [as required by the independent claims].”
App. Br. 9. In response the Examiner explains, although Cohen is relied
upon for transmitting a test request, Xiao is relied upon for teaching the
triggering event, i.e., ‘“in response to a determination that the launch request
has failed’, it’s not taught by Cohen instead it’s taught by Xiao per [0037].”
Ans. 3^4. Thus the Examiner finds the combination of Xiao and Cohen
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 4. Appellant replies,
arguing
Requesting a status using HTTP is not equivalent to the claimed
responsive to a determination that a launch request has failed by
transmitting a test request to a remote server using a protocol
other than a reliable messaging protocol because responding a
failure of a launch request by transmitting a “test” request to a
4
Appeal 2017-004226
Application 13/848,836
server using a protocol other than the reliable protocol plainly
differs from the teaching of Cohan [sic] of sending an HTTP
request to a server, generically.
Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellant the combination of Xiao and Cohen fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Although Xiao teaches determining
a non-delivery status of a message, there is no disclosure of the failure of the
claimed launch request. Furthermore, the Examiner fails to explain why the
occurrence of a non-delivery acknowledgment triggering a “retransmission
of the original message” (Cohen col. 8,11. 64—65) teaches occurrence of a
failure of a launch request triggering transmission of a test request as
claimed. Appellant’s claim closely couples a trigger with what is being
triggered, i.e., “a determination that the launch request has failed” to
“transmitting] a test request.” Claim 6. Although Xiao teaches a
retransmission trigger and Cohen teaches transmission of an http message,
the Examiner’s reason for combining the teachings (i.e., “so to prevent web
server using a communication protocol built on top of HTTP to send
unsolicited data to client.” (Final Act 4)) does not identify a relationship
between Xiao’s trigger and Cohen’s http message transmission explaining
why Xiao’s trigger would be used to initiate transmission of Cohen’s http
message, much less transmission of a test request as claimed.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 6 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Xiao, Cohen, and Wookey, or the rejection of
dependent claims 7—10 and 12—15.
5
Appeal 2017-004226
Application 13/848,836
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6—15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
6