Ex Parte Elad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2012

11635707 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RAFI ELAD and IDO KEREN
____________________

Appeal 2010-005959
Application 11/635,707
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JOHN
G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005959
Application 11/635,707

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-27, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented software for managing data between a client
and server. Specification 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. An article comprising software for managing data between a
client and server, the software embodied on tangible media and
comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor,
cause a computer to perform operations comprising:
[1] receiving an updated remote business object property
from a client;
[2] processing the updated remote business object property
into a hosted business object using hosted business rules,
wherein the hosted business object comprises:
[a] a first hosted business object property
corresponding with the updated remote business object
property, the first hosted business object property set, by the
processing, to the updated remote business object property; and
[b] a second hosted business object property related to
the updated remote business object property; and
[3] communicating an updated hosted business object to the
client.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed September 30, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
December 24, 2009), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed April 17,
2009).
Appeal 2010-005959
Application 11/635,707

3

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Hayton
Bharati
US 2002/0120679 A1
US 2004/0040021 A1
Aug. 29, 2002
Feb. 26, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Bharati.
Claims 4, 6, 15, 18, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bharati and Hayton.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-27 turns
on whether Bharati describes “hosted business object,” “processing the
updated remote business object property into a hosted business object using
hosted business rules,” and “a first hosted business object property
corresponding with the updated remote business object property, the first
hosted business object property set by the processing to the updated remote
business object property,” as recited in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
Appeal 2010-005959
Application 11/635,707

4
the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 1-3,5, 7-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as being anticipated by Bharati
The Appellants first contend that the Examiner misconstrued the term
“hosted business object.” App. Br. 13-15. The Appellants specifically argue
that the term “hosted business object” is defined by the Specification to
mean “structurally organized groups of data, i.e., instances of a particular
class, describing well-understood business information that are managed,
processes, or otherwise manipulated in an object-oriented modeling
environment.” App. Br. 14.
We disagree with the Appellants. The portion of the Specification
cited by the Appellants illustrates this as an example or embodiment, and not
a special definition for the term “hosted business object.” This is evidence
by the use of the terms “typically” and “generally” (Specification 6:6-13 and
6:19-21) to designate that such a definition is not the only definition this
term is limited to. However, the Examiner construed a “hosted business
object” to encompass some component associated with a user’s role in a
business or a business application or process in light of the general or typical
definitions for the term. Ans. 12 and Specification 6:6-13. As such, we
disagree with the Appellants that the Examiner’s construction of a “hosted
business object” is inconsistent with the disclosure of the claimed invention.
The Appellants further contend that even assuming the Examiner’s
interpretation of a “hosted business object” is correct, Bharati fails to
Appeal 2010-005959
Application 11/635,707

5
describe “processing the updated remote business object property into a
hosted business object using hosted business rules” and “a first hosted
business object property corresponding with the updated remote business
object property, the first hosted business object property set by the
processing to the updated remote business object property,” as required by
claim 1. App. Br. 15-17. The Appellants specifically argue that Bharati
describes one list of software updates is compared to another list of software
updates and this comparison step is not the same as processing data. App.
Br. 16-17. We disagree with the Appellants. As found by the Examiner,
Bharati not only describes comparing a list of available updates to a list of
already applied updates, the available but not yet applied updates are
updated into the respective user computing devices. Ans. 12-13 (citing
Bharati ¶¶ 0012-0014, 0027, 0034, and 0109). That is, updated and
available are properties associated with an update and an update is
incorporated into the application or business object based on the values of
these two properties. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Bharati
describes these disputed limitations.

Claims 4, 6, 15, 18, 21, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bharati and Hayton
The Appellants contend that Hayton fails to cure the deficiencies in
Bharati, as alleged in support of claim 1. App. Br. 17. We disagree with the
Appellants. The Appellants arguments of alleged deficiencies in Bharati
were not found to be persuasive for claim 1 for the reasons discussed supra
and are not found to be persuasive here for the same reasons.
Appeal 2010-005959
Application 11/635,707

6

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-17, 19-20,
22-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Bharati.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4, 6, 15, 18, 21, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bharati and Hayton.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-3,5, 7-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-27
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Bharati is sustained.
 The rejection of claims 4, 6, 15, 18, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Bharati and Hayton is sustained.

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

tj