10375815 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 9, 2010)

Ex Parte Gilfix et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 9, 2010

10375815 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 9, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte MICHAEL GILFIX, JERRY WALTER MALCOLM, FOLUSO OLAIYA OKUNSEINDE, TYRON JERROD STADING, PAUL STUART WILLIAMSON, and SCOTT LEE WINTERS __________ Appeal 2008-005497 Application 10/375,815 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2008-005497 Application 10/375,815 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The disclosed invention relates generally to software application integration (Spec. 1). Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of application integration, the method comprising: constructing an application integration adapter in dependence upon a profile comprising data describing the adapter; receiving instructions to alter the adapter; and altering the adapter in dependence upon the instructions. The References The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in support of the rejections: alSafadi US 6,467,088 B1 Oct. 15, 2002 Tamboli US 6,792,431 B2 Sep. 14, 2004 David Rine, Nader Nada, and Khaled Jaber, Using Adapters to Reduce Interaction Complexity in Reusable Component-Based Software Development, Proc. of the 1999 Symposium on Software Reusability (SSR ’99), Los Angeles, CA (May 1999) (“Rine”). Rich Bowen, et al., Apache Administrator’s Handbook, Chapter 5, Configuration Utilities (Sams Publishing, 2002) (“Bowen”). Appeal 2008-005497 Application 10/375,815 3 The Rejections 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13, 17-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rine. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rine and Tamboli. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rine and alSafadi. 4. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rine and Bowen. ISSUE Appellants assert that Rine fails to “[make] any mention of constructing an application integration adapter” (App. Br. 7). Did the Examiner err in finding that Rine discloses constructing an application integration adapter? FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Rine discloses adapters that “interconnect components, contain interactions’ protocol, and manage component interactions” (pg. 39, col. 2). Appeal 2008-005497 Application 10/375,815 4 2. Rine discloses “a configuration file that contains the mapping between adapters” that “might also contain information needed to establish the connection between adapters” (pg. 40, col. 1). 3. Rine discloses that when a configuration file is modified, the corresponding adapter “is modified to work with the new interface” (pg. 42, col. 1). 4. The Specification discloses constructing an adapter as including creating and configuring the adapter (Figure 2 illustrating “Create – 220” and “Configure – 222” as components of “Construct – 204”). 5. The term “create” includes “to make or bring into existence something new” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed., 2005)). PRINCIPLES OF LAW 35 U.S.C. § 102 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Rine discloses adapters that “read the configuration file at initialization time” (Ans. 4) and that “an integration adapter is constructed from the configuration parameters provided in a Appeal 2008-005497 Application 10/375,815 5 profile” (Ans. 10). While we agree with the Examiner that Rine discloses reading a configuration file that contains mapping between adapters (FF 1-2) and reconfiguring or “modifying” an adapter to work with a new interface (FF 3), we do not find, and the Examiner has not shown, that Rine also discloses constructing an adapter. Construing the term “construct” broadly but reasonably and in light of the Specification, “constructing” an adapter includes creating the adapter (FF 4), which, based on a plain and ordinary meaning of the term “creating,” includes bringing into existence something new (FF 5). Since Rine appears to merely modify a pre-existing adapter, rather than bringing a new adapter into existence (i.e., “creating” or “constructing” the adapter) and the Examiner has not shown otherwise, we agree with Appellants that Rine “does not disclose each and every element and limitation” (App. Br. 7) of claim 1. Independent claims 9 and 17 also recite similar features. The Examiner does not find that Tamboli, alSafadi, or Bowen discloses constructing an application integration adapter. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-24, which depend therefrom. Appeal 2008-005497 Application 10/375,815 6 CONCLUSION OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Rine discloses constructing an application integration adapter. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13, 17-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 4, 6-8, 12, 14-16, 20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. REVERSED msc INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP P.O. BOX 1469 AUSTIN, TX 78767-1469