Ex Parte Hoppe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13285888 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/285,888 10/31/2011 Sally Blue Hoppe 82681103 2156
56436 7590 12/21/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SALLY BLUE HOPPE and
WILLIAM HERNANDEZ
Appeal 2016-004891
Application 13/285,8881
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1—5, 7—11, 13 and 14. Appellants have previously
canceled claims 6, 12 and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-004891
Application 13/285,888
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates apparatus and
method for managing access to a plurality of heterogeneous data sources
through utilization of data access object (hereinafter "DAO") interfaces.
Spec. 1 8.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases added to contested limitations):
1. An apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a memory on which is stored a set of machine readable
instructions that cause the processor to:
receive an interaction request;
determine a data source of a plurality of data
sources that 1 s to service the interaction request;
select a data access object (DAO) interface
associated with the determined data source from a
plurality of DAO interfaces that are to facilitate
interactions with a plurality of heterogeneous data
sources,
wherein each of the plurality of DAO interfaces is
to map the interaction request to a respective existing
DAO associated with the determined data source and to
forward the interaction request to the mapped DAO; and
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
April 2, 2015); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 1, 2015); Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 31, 2014); and the original
Specification ("Spec.," filed Oct. 31, 2011).
2
Appeal 2016-004891
Application 13/285,888
implement the selected DAO interface to delegate
communication of the interaction request for servicing of
the interaction request by the determined data source.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Halim US 2004/0249792 A1 Dec. 9, 2004
Valliappan et al. ("Valliappan") US 2005/0165754 A1 July 28, 2005
Phillips et al. ("Phillips") US 2006/0095274 Al May 4, 2006
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—5, 7—11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Halim, Valliappan, and Phillips. Final
Act. 3.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 7—15), we decide the
appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 7—11, 13 and 14 on the
basis of claim 1. We decide the appeal of separately argued claim 2, infra.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so
that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1
and 2, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
3
Appeal 2016-004891
Application 13/285,888
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1
and 2 for emphasis as follows.
1. $ 103(a) Rejection of Claim 1
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 7—13) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Halim,
Valliappan, and Phillips is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination of
Halim, Valliappan and Phillips teaches or suggests an apparatus that
includes a processor and memory with instructions that cause the processor
to, inter alia, "select a data access object (DAO) interface . . . wherein each
of the plurality of DAO interfaces is to map the interaction request to a
respective existing DAO associated with the determined data source and to
forward the interaction request to the mapped DAO," as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellants contend:
In fact, because the same base Java interface is implemented by
all of the DAOs in Halim, the base Java interface does not map
an interaction request to any particular DAO. Accordingly,
Halim fails to disclose that the "base Java interface" is to map
the interaction request to a respective existing DAO associated
4
Appeal 2016-004891
Application 13/285,888
with the determined data source and to forward the interaction
request to the mapped DAO.
App. Br. 10.
Appellants further argue:
[T]he mapping discussed in paragraph [0034] of Halim, at best,
pertains to the generation of a DAO that maps to the query
parameters of an access file. See, Halim, pars. [0010] and
[0011]. As such, the mapping described in paragraph [0034]
does not pertain to any type of mapping to an existing DAO.
App. Br. 11.
The Examiner responds by finding Halim's conversion of a
Sapphire/Web application to a J2EE application maps the name of a
particular place holder to the name of a property in the corresponding DAO,
i.e., the Java Database connectivity (JDBC) type mapped to the object type
of the property, teaches or at least suggests "wherein each of the plurality of
DAO interfaces is to map the interaction request to a respective existing
DAO associated with the determined data source." Ans. 3, citing Halim
112. The Examiner further finds Halim's SELECT-based DAO
implementing the interface at least suggests an "existing DAO associated
with the determined data source" as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3, citing Halim
111.
Our reviewing court guides, claim terms are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art
and taking into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the
Specification. In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).3
3 See Spec. 141 ("The terms, descriptions and figures used herein are set
forth by way of illustration only and are not meant as limitations. Many
5
Appeal 2016-004891
Application 13/285,888
We agree with the Examiner's finding because Halim's multiple
examples of mapping of a particular value placeholder to the name of a
property in the corresponding DAO in accessing databases teaches or at least
suggests "map the interaction request to a respective existing DAO
associated with the determined data source," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3—4,
citing Halim || 11, 12.
Because the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's
findings, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner's reading of the
contested "wherein" clause of claim 1 on the cited combination of references
is overly broad or unreasonable.* * * 4 5 6Given this evidence, we do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive regarding the contested "wherein" clause
of claim l.5,6
variations are possible within the spirit and scope of the disclosure, which is
intended to be defined by the following claims — and their equivalents — in
which all terms are meant in their broadest reasonable sense unless
otherwise indicated."
4 Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
5 We additionally note the patentability of an apparatus claim "depends on
the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." Catalina
MarketingInt'l. Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566
F.3d 1075, 1090-91 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, Appellants merely contest
functional limitations, including the "wherein" clause of claim l. Appellants
do not contest any specific structural differences between the claimed
apparatus and the corresponding structures described in the reference(s).
6 Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes
optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language
that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of
6
Appeal 2016-004891
Application 13/285,888
Appellants also contend:
Phillips fails to disclose "select a data access object (DAO)
interface associated with the determined data source" for at
least the following reasons. . . . Based upon these citations, the
"data access interfaces 220" described in paragraph [0038]
clearly differs from the "repository data access objects 510." In
one regard, the "data access interfaces 220" of Phillips cannot
be construed as being data access objects because the "data
access interfaces 220" do not "wrap the implementation of the
repository connection" as defined in Phillips.
App. Br. 12-13.
The Examiner finds Phillips' data access interface 220 allows a user to
select a source data, and data output interface 230 permits a user to select
data destinations and formats, and DAO 510 teaches or at least suggests the
disputed limitation "select a data access object (DAO) interface associated
with the determined data source" as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4—5 (citing
Phillips 1138, 65).
We note Appellants do not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's
findings and legal conclusions.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the
limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses,
MPEP § 2111.04, 8th ed., Rev. 9, Aug. 2012 (emphasis added).
7
Appeal 2016-004891
Application 13/285,888
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3—5, 7—
11,13 and 14 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
2. $ 103(a) Rejection of Claim 2
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 14—15) the Examiner's rejection of claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Halim,
Valliappan, and Phillips is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the apparatus of claim 1, "wherein the machine readable
instructions are further to cause the processor to access a configuration file
that contains information that the processor is to use in determining the data
source that is to service the interaction request," as recited in claim 2?
Analysis
Appellants contend:
[I]n contrast to claim 2, Valliappan discusses that a search is
performed to identify a data source. In addition, even assuming
for the sake of argument that Valliappan discloses a
configuration file that contains information that the processor is
to use in determining data source, paragraph [0022] of
Valliappan fails to disclose "a configuration file that contained
information that the processor is to use in determining the data
source that is to service the interaction request" as recited in
claim 2.
App. Br. 14-15.
The Examiner finds Valliappan's search manager 20, search
translators 18, which retrieve the search results from the corresponding data
8
Appeal 2016-004891
Application 13/285,888
sources 30, and categories 24, which configure at least one data source 30,
teach or at least suggest the disputed limitation "a configuration file that
contained information that the processor is to use in determining the data
source that is to service the interaction request" of claim 2. Ans. 6—7 (citing
Valliappan || 22, 26, 27, Figs 1, 3, 4).
On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred, in
particular because Appellants, not having filed a Reply Brief, do not respond
to the Examiner's findings and legal conclusions in the Answer (Ans. 6—7
(citing Valliappan || 22, 26, 27, Figs 1, 3, 4), which further expand on the
findings and legal conclusion in the Final Rejection. Final Act. 8—9 (citing
Valliappan 122).
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art, or in the legal conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 2.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1—5, 7—11, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we sustain the rejection.
9
Appeal 2016-004891
Application 13/285,888
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—11, 13
and 14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10