Ex Parte Gonzales et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2016

11872515 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111872,515 10/15/2007
46069 7590 02/03/2016
F CHAU & AS SOCIA TES, LLC (IBM)
Frank Chau
130 WOODBURY ROAD
WOODBURY, NY 11797
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cesar A. Gonzales
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
8728-795
(YOR920060454US 1
CONFIRMATION NO.
8996
EXAMINER
EMDADI, KEYV AN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2016 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):
mail@chauiplaw.com
garramone@chauiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CESAR A. GONZALES, KRISHNA RATAKONDA, and
DEEP AK S. TURAGA
Appeal2014-003175
Application 11/872,515
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
Claims 20-25 have been cancelled. App. Br. 24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003175
Application 11/872,515
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to systems and methods for access
and control of hardware device resources using device-independent access
interfaces. Spec. p.l, 11. 5-12.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computing system, comprising:
a network comprising a plurality of network nodes
including one or more device nodes and computer nodes;
a network hardware device located at each device node
over the network;
a web services platform hosted by one or more computer
nodes over the network, which provides access and control of the
hardware devices over the network through a common, device-
independent interface exposing capabilities of the network
hardware devices as web services that can be invoked to perform
a service; and
a web service device adaptor performing as the common,
device-independent interface to expose the capabilities of only a
specific class of network devices having a common functionality,
wherein the specific class of network devices is a printer device
class, a display device class or a video capture class,
wherein control of two or more of the network hardware
devices of the specific class of network devices is aggregated by
the web service device adaptor through the common, device-
independent interface.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ta US 2004/0199635 Al Oct. 7, 2004
McGee US 2005/0038878 Al Feb. 17,2005
Taylor US 2005/0060202 Al Mar. 17, 2005
2
Appeal2014-003175
Application 11/872,515
I Singh I us 7,769,862 B2 I Aug. 3, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Singh and McGee. Final Act. 2-
8.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Taylor in view of Singh, Ta, and McGee. Final Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We agree
with Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-19.
Claim 1 recites a web service device adaptor that aggregates "control
of two or more of the network hardware devices of the specific class of
network devices." App. Br. 19 (reprinting claim 1). Appellants argue
aggregation means "the discovery and grouping/gathering together of
functionality of multiple devices under a single web service adaptor." Reply
Br. 2; see also App. Br. 8 ("[T]he aggregation of control of multiple devices
of a class such that when one device is indisposed, or otherwise incapable of
providing the requested functionality, another similar device may be easily
employed."). Appellants argue the Examiner fails to show where Singh
teaches that aggregation. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. Although Singh teaches
controlling multiple devices, Appellants argue each of the devices is
3
Appeal2014-003175
Application 11/872,515
controlled by its own controller and control is not aggregated under the
control of a single web service device adaptor. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds Singh teaches "two network devices 210 and 211
[that] are aggregated and controlled via the external network 102 through
their web service adaptors 230 and 232." Final Act. 3 (citing Singh 2:55---65;
Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds "the cited fig. 2 shows two such devices
being aggregated through their respective adaptors, to the internet (web)."
Ans. 13.
We agree with the Appellants the Examiner erred in finding Singh
teaches a web service device adaptor that aggregates "control of two or more
of the network hardware devices of the specific class of network devices" as
required by claim 1. We have reviewed the sections of Singh relied on by
the Examiner and do not find any disclosure of aggregating control. The
Examiner identified transceivers 230 and 232 as web service adaptors (Final
Act. 3) and figure 2 shows that each device has its own web service adaptor
(Singh Fig. 2). Accordingly, there is no single web service adaptor that
aggregates control of two or more of the same type of network device.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejection of claim 13, which
is argued on the same ground. We also reverse the rejection of dependent
claims 2-12 and 14--19 for the same reasons. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.").
4
Appeal2014-003175
Application 11/872,515
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-19.
REVERSED
5