Ex Parte Gys

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2007

09891264 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte LUDO GYS
__________

Appeal 2006-2723
Application 09/891,264
Technology Center 2100
___________

Decided: September 6, 2007
___________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests reconsideration of our Decision of November 16,
2006, wherein we sustained the Examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2006-2723
Application 09/891,264

2

We have carefully considered the arguments presented by Appellant
in the Request and reviewed our decision. However, those arguments do not
persuade us that our decision was in error in any respect or we have
overlooked any relevant points in reaching our decision that the Examiner
properly rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied
prior art.
It is Appellant’s belief “that the Board has adopted an interpretation of
the word ‘contain’ which is broader than what is reasonable in light of the
specification” (Request 2, second ¶). Appellant argues that while a block of
executable code may include a block of executable code, it can “contain” a
block of executable code only if the word “contain” is read to encompass the
concept of “include” (id.). Appellant further asserts that such interpretation,
when used in combination with the word “container,” as recited in the
claims, is unreasonably broad (id.).
We disagree. The ordinary meaning of “contain” as defined by
Merriam-Webster online dictionary1 is:
2 a: to have within: hold b: comprise, include

(emphasis omitted)

Similarly “contain” is among the synonyms of the word “include:”

1 Merriam-Webster Online, http://m-w.com/, Aug. 16, 2007.
Appeal 2006-2723
Application 09/891,264

3
synonyms include, comprehend, embrace, involve mean to
contain within as part of the whole; include suggests the
containment of something as a constituent, component, or
subordinate part of a larger whole .

(emphasis omitted)

Therefore, taking the word “contain” to encompass the concept of
“include” is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the terms and not
unreasonable for this panel to assert that a block of executable code or a
module can “contain” a service independent building block (SIBB).
Therefore, consistent with the ordinary meaning of contain and include, a
software module of Yates is a container since it contains a SIBB.
Appellant further argues that Yates does not suggest the concept of
encapsulation of software building blocks in a software module (Request 3).
We note that Appellant merely contends that the software modules of Yates
are not containers, but fails to specify what a container is as defined by the
instant specification. Appellant’s Specification describes the words
“contain” and “container” as:
In the present case the applications executed by the service
computer SSC are service containers CONT1 and CONT2
delivered by a service server SSV via the connection CCONL.
Additionally, the service computer SSC contains service
computer module SCM, containing in the present embodiment a
so-called virtual machine, which is a software "execution
engine" that safely and compatibly after stringent security
Appeal 2006-2723
Application 09/891,264

4
checks executes the byte codes of the service containers on the
control means CPUSC. The service computer module SCM
may comprise an interpreter decoding and executing statements
of the service container's CONT1 program code. Additionally,
the service computer module SCM may dynamically link native
methods, manage memory or handle exceptions on behalf of the
service container CONTI.

(Specification, ¶ linking pp. 7-8.)

Therefore, the applications executed by the service computer are the
service containers and the service computer further contains a service
computer module which comprises an interpreter decoding and executing
statements of the service container’s program code. The relationship
between these components is an organizational arrangement which
represents a hierarchical organization concept. In that regard, there is no
particular component that can be considered a “container” except for an
application or software modules that contain or include software building
blocks.
Similarly, Yates provides for software modules that comprise
executable code or codes to be interpreted, which means that the SIBB-type
modules still contain individual codes. Although the word “encapsulate” is
not explicitly mentioned by Yates, the description of the software module
functionality (Yates, col. 3, ll. 5-20) provides for individual software
building blocks forming the software module or being contained therein.
Appeal 2006-2723
Application 09/891,264

5
We also observe that Appellant equates the word “contain” with
“encapsulate” based on sending the service component to the service
computer in the same container or another container (Request 4). The
reusable software modules of Yates also allow for reconfigurability of the
agent by selecting new combination of modules (Abstract). Therefore, the
policies that are loaded at run-time and are external to the modules provide
for the service component that may be included or encapsulated in any of the
modules.
Accordingly, based on the state of the prior art as a whole, we remain
of the opinion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine Yates with Beck to provide for the software modules with
individual blocks of code contained or included in the modules.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we have granted Appellant’s
request to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision, but we deny
Appellant’s request to make any change therein.
Appeal 2006-2723
Application 09/891,264

6
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).
DENIED

tdl/gw

SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN MACPEAK & SEAS, PLLC
2100 PENSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3213