Ex Parte Ibanez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

10460429 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte JESUS GERARDO IBANEZ, NEIL A. TAYLOR,
and P. G. RAMACHANDRAN
_____________

Appeal 2010-009622
Application 10/460,429
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009622
Application 10/460,429

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 3-5, 9-11, 25-27 and 29-35 which represent all the
pending claims. Claims 1-2, 6-8, 12-24, and 28 have been cancelled. App.
Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system and method of remotely
accessing a computer system to initiate remote maintenance and
management accesses on network computer systems. See Spec. 1:10-15.
Claim 29 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below:
29. A method comprising:
parsing a Web service request message, which indicates a
target machine, a web server, and a remote access to be
performed by the web server on the target machine, to generate
output, wherein the Web service request message is received
from a requesting device via a programmatic interface for a
Web service;
passing the output to a business layer implemented on a
server that provides the Web service;
determining at least one procedure defined in the
business layer that maps to the remote access;
executing the at least one procedure to instruct the web
server to perform the remote access on the target machine;
packaging, in accordance with the Web service, a
response from the web server that indicates a result of the
access performed by the web server on the target machine; and
supplying the packaged response to the programmatic
interface for communication to the requesting device.

Appeal 2010-009622
Application 10/460,429

3
REFERENCES
Parent US 2002/0184301 A1 Dec. 5, 2002
Fong US 2003/0069951 A1 Apr. 10, 2003

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 5, 11, 25-27, and 29-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Parent. Ans. 4-6.
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Parent and Fong. Ans. 6-8.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parent discloses “Web service
request message is received from a requesting device via a
programmatic interface for a Web service” as recited in claim 29;
and
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parent discloses “passing the
output [of the parsed Web service request message] to a business
layer implemented on a server that provides the Web service” as
recited in claim 29; and
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parent discloses “determining
at least one procedure defined in the business layer that maps to the
remote access” as recited in claim 29; and
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parent discloses “wherein the
business layer interface comprises a business logic layer and a
business facade layer” as recited in claim 33; and
Appeal 2010-009622
Application 10/460,429

4
5. Did the Examiner err in finding that Parent discloses “wherein said
executing the at least one procedure to instruct the web server to
perform the remote access on the target machine comprises
transmitting at least one instruction over a network to the web
server to cause the web server to perform the access on the target
machine over the network” as recited in claim 35?
ANALYSIS
Claims 29 and 33
Claim 29 requires “Web service request message is received from a
requesting device via a programmatic interface for a Web service.”
Appellants argue “Parent does not disclose the server receiving the request
from the client via an API as argued by the Examiner[,] Parent [only]
suggests that the gateway might receive a request from a client via an API
provided by a server.” App. Br. 8. This argument is not persuasive.
Parent discloses a system that initially sends a “user interface
component” to the client 64. Parent ¶ 0030. The client uses this interface
component to send application requests to the web server. Id. We find ample
support for the Examiner’s finding that the requests are messages formulated
by an application (i.e., client interface component) for receipt by an
application (i.e., server software) and thus read on being received “via a
programmatic interface.”
Claim 29 recites “passing the output [of the parsed Web service
request message] to a business layer implemented on a server that provides
the Web service” and “determining at least one procedure defined in the
business layer that maps to the remote access.” Claim 33 further recites that
Appeal 2010-009622
Application 10/460,429

5
“wherein the business layer interface comprises a business logic layer and a
business facade layer.” Appellants argue that “[a] browser requesting an
interface from a server does not disclose or suggest a server translating a
request into an API message and passing it onto a business layer of the
gateway.” App. Br. 8-9. Additionally, Appellants argue “mere mention of an
API and the statement of ‘any processing necessary’ do not disclose or
suggest ‘determining at least one procedure defined in the business layer that
maps to the remote access’ as recited in the claims.” App. Br. 9. These
arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that “[t]he claims reference a business layer, but
no specific functionality is attributed to this term beyond describing the layer
as having two named components (see, e.g., language of claim 33 defining
façade and logic layers).” Ans. 11 (citing Spec. 13:1-9). Therefore, the
Examiner construes the term business layer as a layer of abstraction between
the server and the target machine. Appellants do not identify any description
in the original disclosure, other than what is cited above, that provides
additional guidance in construing this term, nor do Appellants identify any
description in the original disclosure that precludes the Examiner’s
construction. Accordingly, and in view of the record presented, Appellants
have not persuasively argued that the Examiner’s construction is
unreasonable in view of, or inconsistent with, Appellants’ Specification.
Thus, we adopt the Examiner’s construction of the term business layer.
Given the above construction, we find that Parent discloses an
exposed application interface that is available to the server software and
functions as a “façade layer” (Parent ¶ [0062], describing the gateway API)
and the processing of messages, including the logic necessary to determine
Appeal 2010-009622
Application 10/460,429

6
which processing to perform, functions as a “logic layer” (Parent ¶ [0062]
describing the gateway processing a message on the target machine). Thus,
we find Parent discloses “passing the output [of the parsed Web service
request message] to a business layer implemented on a server that provides
the Web service.” Thus, we find that Parent discloses the “business layer”
limitation of claims 29 and 33.
Parent also specifically discloses “the gateway 60 may include an
application programming interface (“API”) that other computers may use in
communicating with the gateway 60 [and] gateway 60 would receive the
message and perform any processing necessary.” Parent ¶ [0062]. Because
claim 29 recites broadly “one procedure defined in the business layer that
maps to the remote access,” we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
performing “any processing necessary” in relation to a remote message
meets the claims language. See Ans. 11.
Claim 35
Claim 35 recites “wherein said executing the at least one procedure to
instruct the web server to perform the remote access on the target machine
comprises transmitting at least one instruction over a network to the web
server to cause the web server to perform the access on the target machine
over the network.” Appellants argue “Parent never discloses transmitting the
instruction over a network to a web server for the web server to perform the
remote access on an embedded device. Clearly, Parent cannot be interpreted
to disclose the gateway transmitting an instruction over a network to itself.”
App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Appeal 2010-009622
Application 10/460,429

7
The Examiner finds:
Parent discloses a request that is passed to a gateway business
software layer 60 that determines the proper procedure to
execute (i.e., “to perform the remote access”) on the target
machine 58a (fig. 8). The gateway is programmed to
communicate with the embedded device (i.e., “target machine”)
and is programmed “to allow access to items on the device”
(paragraph 0061). Thus, the gateway business software layer
maps a procedure to instruct a web server (i.e. server software)
to perform the remote access (i.e. accessing data and services
on the remote target machine) by executing the procedure that
maps to the remote access for the target embedded device (see
paragraphs 0060, 0061, and 0062, which specifically detail how
the gateway layer enables the web server software layer to
perform remote access on the target machines that it is in
communication with).
Ans. 12. Parent discloses that “the gateway 60 may be programmed to
access the items on the device, or a combination of programming in the
device software 58 as well as the gateway software 60 may be
accomplished to facilitate access to items on the [target] device.” Parent ¶
[0061]. Thus, as noted above by the Examiner, Parent discloses
transmitting the instruction, i.e. an instruction to perform a remote access
to “items on a device” (Parent ¶61), over a network to a web server, i.e.
the server software, for the web server to perform the remote access on
an embedded device, i.e. the target device. Therefore, we find ample
support for the Examiners finding and adopt it as our own. Thus, we find
that the Examiner did not err in the decision to reject claim 35.
As noted above, Appellants do not substantively argue the rejection of
claims 3-5, 9-11, 25-27, 30-32, and 34. Thus, for the reasons stated above,
Appeal 2010-009622
Application 10/460,429

8
we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3-5, 9-11, 25-27 and 29-
35.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3-5, 9-11, 25-27 and 29-35
is affirmed. 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).

AFFIRMED

msc