Ex Parte Daum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2014

11848063 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2014)

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.
11/848,063 08/30/2007 Andreas Daum 6741P128 3162
8791 7590 04/25/2014
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
SAEED, USMAAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2014 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 ANDREAS DAUM, WOLFGANG WALTER,
MORITZ THOMAS, and JACEK ZUBER
____________________

Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 The Real Party in Interest is SAP AG.
2 Appeal Brief filed March 7, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed June 9,
2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed April 11, 2011 (“Ans.”);
and the original Specification filed August 30, 2007 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system to manage and
control access to shared resources (e.g., document, application, module,
business logic, business object or similar resource) through a master lock,
shown in FIG. 2. Spec. ¶ [0013].
FIG. 2 is reproduced below.

FIG. 2 shows master system 201 services requesting access to a
resource from other systems 203 and 205 in a network 200. The master 201
can grant access by granting a lock or token of control.

As shown in FIG. 2, master system 201 may grant a key to lock a
resource based on an identifier supplied by the requesting system. The
identifier may be a universal unique identifier (UUID) or any type of
identifier supplied by a requesting system, including, for example, a uniform
resource locator (URL). Id. at ¶¶ [0019]-[0020].

Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063

3

Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent claims on appeal. Claims 1, 12,
and 19 are illustrative of the invention, as reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:

1. A method comprising:
receiving a request for a lock to a resource in a service-oriented
architecture from a first system, the request including a universal
unique identifier (UUID); and
granting the lock statelessly to the first system with the UUID
as a key to the lock.

12. A non-transitory machine readable medium having
instructions stored therein, which when executed, cause a machine to
perform a set of operations comprising:
receiving a first request for a lock of a business object in
service-oriented architecture;
granting the lock statelessly to a requestor with a key based on
an identifier in the first request; and
sending the lock to the requestor.

19. A system comprising:
a processor;
a business object representing a business resource in a service-
oriented architecture; and
a master lock component to statelessly manage access to the
business object in response to a request for access by a system, the
master lock component to supply a lock having a key derived from a
universal unique identifier (UUID) of the system, the UUID supplied
as part of the request.

Evidence Considered
Kaminsky US 2007/0143477 A1 Jun. 21, 2007
Lin US 2006/0101081 A1 May 11, 2006

Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063

4

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kaminsky. Ans. 4-6.
(2) Claims 4, 8, 10, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaminsky and Lin. Ans. 7-8.

Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-14, and 16-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kaminsky. In particular,
the appeal turns on:
(a) Whether Kaminsky describes “a service-oriented
architecture” as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1, 12 and
19. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4-6.

(b) Whether Kaminsky describes “a universal unique
identifier (UUID)” as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1 and
19. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4-6.

(c) Whether Kaminsky describes “the UUID as a key to the
lock”, “a key based on an identifier” or “a lock having a key derived
from a UUID.” App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4-6.

ANALYSIS
§ 102(e) Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-14, and 16-20 based on
Kaminsky

With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Kaminsky
discloses a method and system to manage and control access to shared
resources through a master lock, shown in Figure 2, including receiving a
request for a lock to a resource in a service-oriented architecture, and
Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063

5

granting the lock with a UUID as a key to the lock. Ans. 4 (citing
Kaminsky, ¶¶ [0033-0034], [0036], [0097], and FIG. 2).
FIG. 2 of Kaminsky is reproduced below for illustration.

FIG. 2 shows receiving a request for a lock and granting the lock to a
client ¶¶ [0046]-[0055].

Appellants acknowledge Kaminsky teaches a request for a lock where
each lock is identified by a unique identifier and the unique identifier is
generated by a locking manager as part of granting the lock. App. Br. 6.
Nevertheless, Appellants contend that Kaminsky does not describe: (1) “a
service-oriented architecture,” (2) “a universal unique identifier (UUID),”
and (3) “the UUID as a key to the lock” as recited in independent claim 1.
Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063

6

Id. at 8. In particular, Appellants argues that the claim terms “service-
oriented architecture” and “universal unique identifier (UUID)” have a
particular meaning in the art as defined by Wikipedia and, based on those
Wikipedia definitions, should distinguish over Kaminsky. Id. In addition,
Appellants argue that the unique identifier of Kaminsky is not supplied as
part of the request and that the unique identifier is not of a universal unique
identifier (UUID) type as recited in Appellants’ claim 1.
We disagree with Appellants. At the outset, we note that the adjective
“universal” that modifies the term “unique identifier” does not distinguish
the claimed subject matter from Kaminsky. We do not accord the term
“universal” any weight in evaluating patentability. In our view, as long as
Kaminsky teaches an identifier that is used for the same purpose of
Appellants’ claimed “universal unique identifier (UUID),” i.e., as part of a
request from a client to identify the client, the identifier of Kaminsky is
considered equivalent to Appellants’ claimed “universal unique identifier
(UUID).” See Kaminsky, ¶ [0031], and FIG. 2.
Second, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1369, (Fed. Cir. 2004). Such claim terms are “given their ordinary
and customary meaning” as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-
13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Intrinsic evidence, such as “the specification,
. . . may shed contextual light” on the ordinary and customary meaning of a
claim term. Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373
(Fed. Cir. 2013). “The construction that stays true to the claim language and
Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063

7

most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in
the end, the correct construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
In the instant appeal, the claim terms “service-oriented architecture”
and “universal unique identifier (UUID)” are not defined in Appellants’
claims or Appellants’ Specification. Instead, Appellants’ Specification
simply refers “a service-oriented architecture” broadly as a distributed
network environment that provides modular business logic that is presented
as a service to clients, including, for example, a messaging system that
facilitates inter-application communication and utilizes universal unique
identifiers (UUIDs) to identify the originating application or system for each
message. See Spec. ¶ [0031]. The term “universal unique identifier (UUID)”
indicates a component of such an enterprise service-oriented architecture
messaging. Id. at ¶ [0019]. Nevertheless, Appellants’ Specification is not
limited thereto and is inclusive of any type of identifier supplied by a
requesting system, such as a uniform resource locator (URL). Id. at
¶ [0020].
In the absence of such an explicit definition, the Examiner may adopt
the broadest reasonable definition of the term consistent with the
Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In
particular, the Examiner has broadly interpreted the claim term “service-
oriented architecture” as encompassing Kaminsky’s a request for a lock to a
resource which is a service provided to external client applications. See
Kaminsky, ¶ [0028], FIG. 2. Likewise, the Examiner has broadly interpreted
the claim term “universal unique identifier (UUID)” as encompassing a
unique identifier included in the request to identify the client in order to lock
a resource, as described by Kaminsky. Ans. 4 and 9 (citing Kaminsky,
Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063

8

¶¶ [0028], [0031]-[0034], and [0097]). We conclude the Examiner’s
interpretation of these claimed terms is reasonable and consistent with
Appellants’ own Specification.
Extrinsic evidence such as Wikipedia definitions provided by
Appellants is considered less reliable and can only be used to better
understand the underlying technology of Appellants’ invention as long as
those dictionary definitions do not contradict any meaning ascertained from
Appellants’ Specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). Because the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed claimed
terms is found to be reasonable and consistent with Appellants’ own
Specification, we have considered but declined to read the Wikipedia
definitions into the claims. We, therefore, find Kaminsky discloses a
“service-oriented architecture”, “UUID”, and “UUID as a key to the lock” in
the manner recited in Appellants’ independent claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants’ contentions have not
persuaded us of any error in the Examiner’s position. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 based
on Kaminsky.
With respect to independent claim 12, Appellants present the same
arguments against Appellants’ claim 1; however, we note that claim 12 is
broader than Appellants’ independent claim 1 and does not recite an
identifier as a “universal unique identifier (UUID).” App. Br. 9. For the
same reasons discussed in connection with claim 1, we also sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 12 based on
Kaminsky.
Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063

9

With respect to independent claim 19, Appellants present the same
arguments against Appellants’ claims 1 and 12, except for the key is now
“derived from a UUID” as opposed to the key is the UUID. App. Br. 9.
However, in our view, if the key is derived from a UUID, then UUID is the
key. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 19 based on Kaminsky.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Appellants argue that Kaminsky
does not disclose “denying the request from a second system for the lock
upon determining a UUID of the second system does not result in a match of
the key.” App. Br. 9-10. We disagree with Appellants. As correctly found
by the Examiner, Kaminsky discloses identifying client from whom the
request was received and denying the lock request. Ans. 5 (citing
Kaminsky, ¶ [0031], FIG. 6). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of dependent claim 3 based on Kaminsky.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 14, Appellants argue that
Kaminsky does not disclose “the request includes an indicator of a length of
time for using the resource.” App. Br. 10. Again, we disagree with
Appellants. As correctly found by the Examiner, Kaminsky discloses grant
time and duration are used for automatic lock expiration. Ans. 11-12 (citing
Kaminsky ¶ [0031]). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of dependent claims 5 and 14 based on Kaminsky.
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 16, Appellants argue that
Kaminsky does not disclose “broadcasting a release of the lock.” App. Br.
10-11. Again, we disagree with Appellants. As correctly found by the
Examiner, Kaminsky discloses a composite lock request to result in a burst
of exchanged lock and unlock messages between a client and server. Ans.
Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063

10

12 (citing Kaminsky ¶[0042]). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of dependent claims 6 and 16 based on Kaminsky.
With respect to dependent claim 18, Appellants argue that Kaminsky
does not disclose “the identifier is a UUID.” App. Br. 11. Again, we
disagree with Appellants. For the same reasons discussed in connection
with Appellants’ independent claims 1, 12, and 19, we sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claim 18 based on
Kaminsky.
With respect to dependent claim 20, Appellants argue that Kaminsky
does not disclose “the lock is specific to a UUID of the request.” App. Br.
11. We disagree with Appellants. As correctly found by the Examiner,
Kaminsky discloses that a client id is identified from which the lock request
was received. Ans. 12 (citing Kaminsky ¶ [0031]). Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claim 20 based on
Kaminsky.

§ 103(a) Rejection of dependent Claims 4, 8, 10, 15, and 21 based on
Kaminsky and Lin.

With respect to dependent claims 4, 8, 15, and 21, Appellants further
argue that Lin does not disclose “reclaiming the lock” based on the
“expiration of a time.” App. Br. 12-13. We disagree with Appellants. As
correctly found by the Examiner, the Examiner’s combination of Kaminsky
and Lin discloses “reclaiming the lock . . . upon expiration of the timeout.”
Ans. 13-14 (citing Kaminsky, FIG. 2; and Lin, ¶¶ [0067], [0255], and
[0267]). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 4, 8, 15, and 21 based on Kaminsky and Lin.
Appeal 2011-012714
Application 11/848,063

11

With respect to dependent claim 10, Appellants argue that Lin does
not disclose “broadcasting that the lock has been reclaimed by a master.”
App. Br. 13. We disagree with Appellants. As correctly found by the
Examiner, the combination of Kaminsky and Lin discloses “broadcasting
that the lock has been reclaimed by a master.” Ans. 14 (citing Lin,
¶¶ [0067], [0166]-[0167], [0255], and [0267]). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 10 based on Kaminsky
and Lin.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and § 103(a).

DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-21.
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

lp