Ex parte HARPER et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 9, 1998

08225158 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 9, 1998)

Application for patent filed April 8, 1994. According1 to appellants, this application is a division of Application 07/830,435, filed January 30, 1992. 1 THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board. Paper No. 17 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte THOMAS A. HARPER, VALDEMAR GARZA JR. and PHILIP R. MEAD __________ Appeal No. 96-1921 Application 08/225,1581 __________ ON BRIEF __________ Before THOMAS, KRASS, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of Appeal No. 96-1921 Application No. 08/225,158 2 claims 10 and 11, the only claims remaining in the application. The invention pertains to a bypass send and receive optimizer method for VTAM processes. Computer network data traffic is reduced by bypassing a collection of computer program routines and macros, known as Virtual Telecommunications Access Method (VTAM), during certain communications between two processes so as to provide significant savings of system resources and improved execution speed over that required for VTAM to process the same communication, i.e., SEND and RECEIVE requests, between processes. The bypass is achieved, in part, by modifying the RECEIVE request’s request-parameter-list portion to include the address of a buffer memory where the SEND request’s data is stored. Independent claim 10, reproduced as follows, clearly explains the invention: 10. A Bypass Send and Receive method, executed by a machine which is also executing (1) a communications program VTAM, (2) a first application program, and (3) a second application program, for converting an outgoing data stream from the first application program to an incoming data stream for the second application program, said Bypass Send and Appeal No. 96-1921 Application No. 08/225,158 3 Receive method comprising: (a) receiving a SEND request from the first application program, said SEND request having a data portion representing an outgoing data stream; (b) receiving a RECEIVE request from the second application program, said RECEIVE request having a request- parameter-list portion; (c) storing the SEND request's data portion in a buffer memory, said buffer memory having an address; (d) notifying the first application program that the SEND request is completed; (e) converting the outgoing data stream to an incoming data stream by modifying the RECEIVE request's request- parameter-list portion to include the address of the buffer memory; and (f) notifying the second application program that the RECEIVE request is completed. The examiner relies on the prior art Figures 1B, 6 and 8 of the instant disclosure. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b) as anticipated by the prior art “detailed in the textual portions of the specification and figures of this application” [answer-page 3]. Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of appellants and the examiner. Appeal No. 96-1921 Application No. 08/225,158 4 OPINION We reverse. The examiner clearly has not made out a prima facie case of anticipation of the instant claimed subject matter. While the examiner points to Figures 6 and 8 as admitted prior art in the disclosure as evidence of anticipation of the claimed subject matter, it is clear that Figure 6 refers to a flow diagram of a prior art VTAM SEND event while Figure 8 relates to a flow diagram of a prior art VTAM RECEIVE event. However, the instant claims are clearly directed to bypassing the VTAM. There is no indication of any bypassing of the VTAM in the prior art figures cited by the examiner. The examiner’s response to this argument made by appellants is to indicate that the claims are somehow not directed to any bypassing process since “the claims are silent as to what is being bypassed or who or what is doing the bypassing or not doing the bypassing” [answer-page 5]. We agree with appellants that independent claim 10 is very clear and specific as to the bypass operation. The preamble of the claim indicates that we are concerned with a Appeal No. 96-1921 Application No. 08/225,158 5 “Bypass Send and Receive method.” Further, the preamble indicates that a machine is executing three programs: 1. A communications program VTAM. 2. A first application program. 3. A second application program. The preamble also indicates that the Bypass Send and Receive method includes converting an outgoing data stream from the first application program to an incoming data stream for the second application program. Thus, if we have three programs being executed, the recitation of communication between two of them, and a recitation of a bypass, it is clear that the third program, not a party to the communication, i.e., the communications program VTAM, must be the program being bypassed. Accordingly, in response to the examiner’s queries, the claims are not silent as to what is being bypassed, it is the communications program VTAM which is being bypassed and, as to “what” is performing the bypassing, the claim is a method claim and need not recite specific structure. However, reference to the specification, at pages 16 et seq., and Figures 9 and 11, for example, clearly detail a session manager program UOV which intercepts an OPEN instruction from an application APPL, the application APPL Appeal No. 96-1921 Application No. 08/225,158 6 issuing the instruction intending it to be processed by VTAM, and causes the method set forth in claim 10 to be carried out, bypassing VTAM. Since the prior art referenced by the examiner relates to VTAM, while the instant claims are directed to bypassing VTAM, there is no anticipation of the instant claimed invention by the cited prior art. More specifically, we find nothing in the prior art cited that suggests step (e) of the method recited in claim 10. There is no conversion, in the prior art cited, of the outgoing data stream to an incoming data stream by modifying the RECEIVE request’s RPL portion to include the address of the buffer memory where the SEND request’s data portion is stored. Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b) is reversed. REVERSED Appeal No. 96-1921 Application No. 08/225,158 7 James D. Thomas ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF PATENT Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) Jerry Smith ) Administrative Patent Judge ) tdc Appeal No. 96-1921 Application No. 08/225,158 8 Arnold, White & Durkee P.O. Box 4433 Houston, TX 77210