Ex Parte Jamison

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 19, 2009

10144342 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 19, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WILFRED C. JAMISON
____________________

Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided: August 19, 2009
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and DEBRA
K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention is related to a system and
method for coordinating computing devices and operation of various web
services in a distributed computing environment using role based
interpretation of coordination plans (Spec. 1, §1. Technical Field).

Exemplary Claim(s)
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method of providing a primary web service, comprising:

identifying a coordination plan for the primary web service, wherein
the coordination plan identifies a first web service and a second service
that should be performed to provide the primary web service;

after the coordination plan has been identified, identifying at least
one first provider of the first web service identified in the coordination
plan and at least one second provider of the second web service identified
in the coordination plan;

forwarding the coordination plan, which identifies the first web
service and the second web service that must be performed to provide the
primary web service, to each of the at least one first and second
providers; and

coordinating two-way collaboration between the first and second
web services based on the coordination plan.
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

3
Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Monchilovich 6,952,717 B1 Oct. 4, 2005
(filed Oct. 20, 2000)
Kriegsman 5,991,809 Nov. 23, 1999

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6-11, 13-16, 21-26, and 28-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kriegsman.
The Examiner rejected claims 2-5, 12, 17-20 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Kriegsman and in view of Monchilovich.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

(1) Appellant presents essentially the same arguments for claims 1-3, 6-8,
10-13, 15-18, 21-23, 25-28, 20, and 31 on appeal regarding the alleged
deficiency of the cited references as argued for claim 1 (App. Br. 10, §A.1
and App. Br. 18, §B.1). We, therefore, treat claims 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16,
21-23, 25, 26, 28, 30, and 31 as a group standing or falling with
representative claim 1. We treat claims 2-5, 12, 17-20, and 27 as a group
separately.
(2) Appellant argues claims 9 and 24 as a group (App. Br. 17, §A.2). We
will, therefore, treat claim 24 as standing or falling with representative claim
9.
(3) Appellant argues claims 14 and 29 as a group (id. at §A.3). We will,
therefore, treat claim 29 as standing or falling with representative claim 14.
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

4
(4) Appellant argues claims 4 and 19 as a group (App. Br. 19, §B.2). We
will, therefore, treat claim 19 as standing or falling with representative claim
4.
(5) Appellant argues claims 5 and 20 as a group (id. at §B.3). We will,
therefore, treat claim 20 as standing or falling with representative claim 5.

We accept Appellant’s grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph,
the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has
grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board
must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.”).

Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 30, and 31
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues Kriegsman does not teach a coordination plan that
identifies a first and a second web service (App. Br. 11, §A.1). Instead,
Appellant contends the static files are the only thing “identified,” and static
files do not provide any type of information pertaining to particular services,
or identification of such services (App. Br. 13, §A.1). Moreover, Appellant
argues, copying a file and re-writing requested web-pages do not teach
coordination plan identification (id.). Rather, Appellant argues Kriegsman
teaches copying a file from one server to another (id.). Additionally,
Appellant argues re-writing a requested web-page does not identify a
coordination plan (id.).
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

5
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE
In response, the Examiner finds Kriegsman teaches a web serving
system that efficiently coordinates the efforts of two or more web servers
(primary web server and various secondary web servers) to transfer data files
rapidly through the TCP/IP-capable network while minimizing the cost of
the system (Ans. 8, §(10)(A)). The Examiner further finds that by
coordinating the data retrieval from the various servers, the primary server is
able to control the data files sent by each server so that the speed in which
data files are delivered to a target browser computer is maximized while
retaining the ability to provide dynamic and interactive pages (i.e., dynamic
data files) (id.).
In addition, the Examiner finds the primary computer identifies static
files consuming most of the communication link capacity, and copies the
static data files to other secondary web server(s) and then dynamically re-
writes requested pages so that the static data files are retrieved directly from
the optimal web server (id.). The Examiner reminds Appellant the claims
must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (Ans. 8, § (10) (A)).
The Examiner then finds the claim language is silent on specifics of the
coordination plan, on specifics of the type of services associated with it, and
on the entity responsible for identifying the coordination plan (id.).

ISSUE 1:
Has Appellant met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in
finding Kriegsman teaches a coordination plan that identifies a first web
service and a second web service?

Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

6
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues Kriegsman teaches the primary web server identifies
the coordination plan, and thus the primary web server has been identified
when the coordination plan is identified (App. Br. 13, §A.1). Therefore,
Appellant contends Kriegsman teaches the web service provider is identified
and then the identified web service provider identifies static files (alleged to
be the coordination plan) – the opposite of Appellant’s invention as recited
in claim 1 (App. Br. 14, §A.1).

EXAMINER’S RESPONSE
The Examiner finds Kriegsman teaches a plan to optimize file transfer
– the coordination plan (Ans. 10, § (10) (B)). The Examiner accordingly
finds the plan to optimize the file transfer is identified well in advance (id.).
Since Kriegsman teaches the web servers are identified after identifying the
static files and after the inception of the plan to optimize file transfer, the
web servers are identified after the identification of the coordination plan
(id.).
ISSUE 2:
Has Appellant met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in
finding Kriegsman teaches the coordination plan is identified before the first
and second providers of the first and second web services, respectively, are
identified?

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant next argues claim 1 recites identifying a coordination plan,
and forwarding the coordination plan as two distinct actions/steps (App. Br.
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

7
15, §A.1). Appellant contends Kriegsman teaching of one step is not
equivalent to teaching the other and further, the Examiner’s contention is at
best an “inferred ghost plan” (id.). Moreover, Kriegsman does not teach
forwarding a plan to the secondary server (id.). Appellant argues only actual
static data files sent from the primary server during file replication and
requests for the actual static data files sent from a user’s browser, are sent to
the secondary server (App. Br. 16, §A.1). Kriegsman does not teach
forwarding any coordination plan to any server to the providers of web
services or to anyone or anywhere else (id.).

EXAMINER’S RESPONSE
The Examiner contends the claim does not specify what the
coordination plan entails or what is being forwarded (i.e., file, triggering
event) – only that the coordination plan is being forwarded (Ans. 10, § (10)
(C)). The Examiner finds Kriegsman teaches the first provider and the
second provider receive the coordination plan, when the plan is put in action
(id.).
ISSUE 3:
Has Appellant met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in
finding Kriegsman teaches forwarding the coordination plan to the first and
second providers?

Claims 9 and 24
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues Kriegsman does not teach identifying a coordination
plan that uses a lookup table of coordination plans, meta data associated with
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

8
the primary web service that identifies the coordination plan, or a service
lookup in a services directory that identifies the primary web service and its
associated coordination plan (App. Br. 17, §A.2). Instead, Appellant
contends, Kriegsman teaches use of a look-up table for looking up specific
criteria pertaining to specific data files that are to be transmitted– not to
identify the coordination plan (id.).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE
The Examiner finds the storage means of the primary server stores at
least one look-up table having specific criteria pertaining to the data files
and the primary and at least one secondary servers (Ans. 11, §(10)(D)). The
Examiner further finds the processor means of the primary server is effective
to receive a request for specific data files from a network user, to look-up
specific criteria in the look-up table pertaining to the specific data files, and
to allocate transmission of each specific data file between the primary server
and the at least one secondary server based on the specified criteria (id.).
Since this look-up is used to coordinate the file transfer optimization through
collaboration between the two servers and their communication channels to
quickly and efficiently transfer the requested file, the Examiner finds
Kriegsman teaches identifying the coordination plan that uses a look-up
table of coordination plans (id.).
ISSUE 4:
Has Appellant met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in
finding Kriegsman teaches identifying the coordination plan that uses a
look-up table of coordination plans?

Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

9
Claims 14 and 29
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues Kriegsman does not teach the further details of the
coordination plan (App. Br. 17-18, §A.3). Specifically, Kriegsman does not
teach the coordination plan includes actions that specify tasks to be
performed, actors to carry out the specified actions, and objects that specify
data/actors used in carrying out the actions (App. Br. 18, §A.3).

EXAMINER’S RESPONSE
The Examiner finds Kriegsman teaches a web serving system that
efficiently coordinates the efforts of two or more web servers (primary web
server and various secondary web servers) to transfer data files rapidly
through the TCP/IP-capable network while minimizing the cost of such
system (Ans. 12, §(10)(E)). According to the Examiner, Kriegsman teaches
that by coordinating the data retrieval from the various servers, the primary
server is able to control the data files sent by each server so that the speed
data files are delivered to a target browser computer is maximized, while
dynamic and interactive pages (i.e., dynamic data files) may still be provided
(id.). The Examiner finds the primary computer builds a statistical model of
how the capacity of primary communication links is being consumed by the
transmission of the various data files, determines which static data files are
consuming the most capacity, communicates through channels between the
primary (first provider) and secondary web servers, copies those capacity-
consuming static data files to one or more secondary web servers (second
provider), and then dynamically re-writes requested pages so that the
embedded static data files are retrieved directly from the best or optimal web
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

10
server each time (id.). Therefore, the Examiner finds Kriegsman’s plan to
optimize the file transfer process through coordination of multiple servers
teaches the actions that specify tasks to be performed and actors to carry out
the actions.
ISSUE 5:
Has Appellant met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in
finding Kriegsman teaches optimizing file transfer process through
coordination of multiple servers?

Claims 4 and 19
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant contends neither Monchilovich nor Kriegsman, taken alone
or in combination, teaches or suggests the claimed feature of "wherein the
invitation includes at least one role designation for the at least one first
provider or the at least one second provider" (App. Br. 19, §B.2). Appellant
further argues the Examiner has not alleged any teaching or suggestion of
the claimed feature; therefore, the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case (id.).

EXAMINER’S RESPONSE
The Examiner finds Monchilovich teaches a computer-implemented
process for receiving a project invitation as shown in the process 620. In step
910 a decision is made whether the project (coordination plan) identified by
the invitation that exists in the local database (which is the location of the
coordination plan) (Ans. 13, §(10)(F)). If the result of decision 910 is
negative, the "no" branch is followed to step 912; if positive, the "yes"
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

11
branch is followed to step 916 (id.). If the project does not exist in the local
database the client imports data for the project from the Global Information
Store (GIS) 415a or 415b by accessing the Web server 410a or 410b (id.).
The Examiner further finds data to be imported includes information specific
to the project, companies associated with the project (roles of companies in
the project), contacts for the project, and CSI codes (id.). Therefore, the
Examiner finds Monchilovich teaches that the invitation includes at least one
role designation for the at least one first provider or at least one second
provider.
ISSUE 6:
Has Appellant met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in
finding Monchilovich teaches the invitation includes a role designation for
one of the providers?

Claims 5 and 20
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues the Examiner has not provided a prima facie
showing of obviousness since neither Monchilovich nor Kriegsman, taken
alone or in combination, teaches or suggests "wherein the invitation includes
an identification of a location where the coordination plan is available" and
the Examiner has not alleged the references, taken alone or in combination,
teach or suggest the present invention as recited (App. Br. 19, §B.3).

EXAMINER’S RESPONSE
The Examiner further finds Monchilovich teaches a computer-
implemented process for receiving a project invitation in process 620 (Ans.
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

12
14, §(10)(G)). In this process, if the project does not exist in the local
database, the client imports data for the project from the Global Information
Store (GIS) 415a or 415b by accessing the Web server 410a or 410b (id.).
The Examiner then finds since data to be imported includes information
specific to the project, companies associated with the project, contacts for
the project, and CSI codes, the invitation includes an identification of a
location where the coordination plan is available (id.).
ISSUE 7:
Has Appellant met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in
finding Monchilovich teaches the invitation includes an identification of a
location where the coordination plan is available?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Appellant’s Invention
(1) The coordination plan is data identifying the services needed to
complete the primary web service, the type of interactions required between
the services, and the conditions under which these interactions occur (Spec.
15, ll. 17-20).
(2) In one embodiment, invitations to engage in collaboration may
be sent to all of the possible web service providers with the first positive
response for each role in the coordination plan being accepted and all others
being ignored (Spec. 18, ll. 14-18). A coordinator of a web service provider
may return a refusal message declining the invitation or may issue the
invitation message to another web service provider server (Spec. 19, l. 25 to
Spec. 20, l. 20).
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

13

Monchilovich Reference
(3) Monchilovich describes a system and method relating to
computer systems that utilize the Internet to send and receive information
using an Application Service Provider to facilitate collaboration on shared
projects (Abstract).
(4) A computer-implemented process 620 starts at step 902 and a
message or document is received in step 904 (col. 9, ll. 3-5). At decision
step 906, a decision is made whether to accept the message or document
(col. 9, ll. 5-7). If decision 906 is negative, the "no" branch is followed to
step 908 where the rejected message is sent to the sender; if positive, the
"yes" branch is followed to step 910 (col. 9, ll. 7-12).
(5) In step 910, a determination is made whether the project
identified by the invitation exists in the local database (col. 9, ll. 12-14). If
the result of decision 910 is negative, the "no" branch is followed to step 912
(col. 9, ll. 14-15).
(6) In step 912 the client imports data for the project from the GIS
415a or 415b by accessing the Web server 410a or 410b (col. 9, ll. 18-20).
Data to be imported includes information specific to the project, companies
associated with the project, contacts for the project, and CSI codes (col. 9, ll.
20-22).

Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

14
Kriegsman Reference
(7) Kriegsman teaches a method and system for network of
computer systems that transfer data files through a network connection,
some of which are repeatedly transferred without changes ("static files"),
and some of which may be modified for each transfer ("dynamic files") (col.
1, ll. 8-12).
(8) Web servers connected to a network, transfer data files of the
World Wide Web to computer systems connected to the network (col. 1, ll.
13-16). A web serving system that efficiently coordinates the efforts of two
or more web servers to transfer data files rapidly through the network while
minimizing the cost of such system (col. 1, ll. 16-20).
(9) The primary server and secondary server store and transmit the
data files to the network (col. 3, ll. 29-32). The primary server has storage
for storing a look-up table having specific criteria pertaining to the data files
and the servers (col. 3, ll. 29-36). The primary server’s processor receives a
request for specific data files from a network user, looks-up specific criteria
in the look-up table pertaining to the specific data files, and allocates
transmission of each specific data file between the primary server and at
least one secondary server based on the specified criteria (col. 3, ll. 36-42).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

15
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).

Anticipation
“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention” as well as disclosing structure, which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. App.
Dig. Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citation
omitted); W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Obviousness
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, "[w]hat matters is the
objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
invalid under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be "more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions." Id. at 416.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 15-18, 21-23, 25-28, 20, and 31
ISSUE 1
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Kriegsman teaches a
coordination plan and find Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we find Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred.
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

16
Additionally, we further find the limitation argued by Appellant
recites non-functional descriptive material – identifying a coordination plan.
The coordination plan is defined by Appellant in the Specification as merely
data (FF 1). How the data may be characterized represents no more than
non-functional descriptive material. The content of non-functional
descriptive material is not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis.
See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008); Ex parte
Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential) (Fed. Cir. Appeal
No. 2006-1003, aff’d Rule 36 June 12, 2006); MPEP § 2106.01 (2008).
Appellant recites in claim 1 a method that differs from the prior art
solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter
how the method is to be performed to achieve the utility of the invention.
Thus, since the limitation recites identifying data, we find the
difference between the cited reference and the claimed invention is simply a
rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material.
Thus, based on the Examiner’s findings, we find claim 1 recites a
method taught by Kriegsman.
ISSUE 2
Appellant next argues Kriegsman does not teach identifying data (the
coordination plan) before the first and second providers of the first and
second web services identified in the coordination plan are identified. We
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kriegsman teaches this limitation.
Thus, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive and conclude Appellant
has not met the burden of showing the Examiner erred.
Moreover, as above, we find the coordination plan is non-functional
descriptive material, and the contents of the data (providers, web services,
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

17
etc.) are not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. Therefore, we
find the limitation of identifying data and then, after identifying the data,
identifying providers identified in the data is taught by Kriegsman.
Accordingly, based on the Examiner’s findings and additionally,
based on the limitation reciting non-functional material, we conclude
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred.
ISSUE 3
Appellant next argues Kriegsman does not teach forwarding the
coordination plan. Again, based on the Examiner’s findings, we find
Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive and conclude Appellant has not met the
burden of showing the Examiner erred.
Moreover, since we have found the coordination plan to be data –
non-functional descriptive matter – we additionally find Kriegsman teaches
forwarding data.
Accordingly, based on these findings that Kriegsman teaches
identifying the coordination plan, identifying providers in the coordination
plan, and forwarding the coordination plan, we conclude Appellant has not
shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Since claims 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 30, and 31
were grouped by Appellant with claim 1 and not separately argued, we
conclude Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-
8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 30, and 31.
Regarding the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 12, 17, 18, and
27 over Kriegsman and Monchilovich, we find that Appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness for
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

18
these claims, but merely refer to the previous arguments made in connection
with claim 1 (App. Br. 18, §B.1).
Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellant to present
evidence and/or arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima
facie case. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Since
Appellant did not particularly point out errors in the Examiner’s reasoning to
persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 12, 17, 18, and 27 for the same reasons
indicated previously.

Claims 9 and 24
ISSUE 4
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kriegsman teaches
identifying a coordination plan for the primary web service and find the
Examiner has set forth a prima facie case, which Appellant has not
persuaded us is in error.
Moreover, as we found above with respect to claim 1, identifying a
coordination plan for the primary web service is identifying data.
Kriegsman clearly teaches identifying data and a lookup table with various
data (FF 9). Accordingly, based on these reasons, we find Appellant has not
met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9. Since
Appellant did not separately argue claim 24, but instead elected to group
claim 24 with representative claim 9, we additionally find Appellant has not
met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24.

Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

19
Claims 14 and 29
ISSUE 5
Again we find Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred
unpersuasive. We find Kriegsman teaches the argued limitations as the
Examiner has detailed.
Moreover, we again find that since the limitation recites details of the
coordination plan, claim 14 recites non-functional descriptive matter. Since
Appellant did not separately argue claim 29, and instead elected to group
claim 29 with representative claim 14, we additionally find Appellant has
not met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 29.

Claims 4 and 19
ISSUE 6
In our review of this rejection, we find that the Examiner has made
specific fact finding with respect to argued claim 4 (Final Rej. 6, § 18.; Ans.
13-14, §(10) (F)). We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Appellant states
the claim language and simply asserts that the limitation is missing from the
reference. However, Appellant does not present any arguments to explain
why the Examiner’s finding that Monchilovich teaches the limitation is in
error. Arguments not presented in the Appeal Brief “will be refused
consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown” 1 (i.e., are waived).
Weighing as a whole the Appellant’s contentions that the reference
does not teach the recited limitation and the Examiner’s specific and detailed

1 A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim (See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii)).
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

20
findings, we conclude Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's
finding that Monchilovich teaches the invitation includes a role designation
for one of the providers.
Appellant did not separately argue claim 19, but instead grouped
claim 19 with representative claim 4; therefore, we additionally find
Appellant has not met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 19.
Claims 5 and 20
ISSUE 7
As with respect to claims 4 and 19, we find that upon reviewing this
rejection, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the Examiner has made fact
finding with respect to argued claim 5 (Final Rej. 6, § 18.; Ans. 14,
§(10)(G)). Again, Appellant states the claim language and asserts the
limitation is missing from the reference. However, Appellant does not
present any arguments to explain why the Examiner’s fact finding that
includes specific references to teachings in Monchilovich, is in error.
Arguments not presented in the Appeal Brief “will be refused consideration
by the Board, unless good cause is shown” 2 (i.e., are waived). In contrast,
the Examiner findings address each claim limitation raised on appeal by
Appellant and reference specific teachings in Monchilovich as showing
these claim limitations.
Considering the record as a whole - the Appellant’s contentions that
the reference does not teach the recited limitation and the Examiner’s

2 A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim (See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii)).
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

21
specific and detailed findings – we conclude Appellant has not shown error
in the Examiner's finding that Monchilovich teaches the invitation includes
an identification of a location where the coordination plan is available.
Appellant did not separately argue claim 20, but instead elected to
group claim 20 with representative claim 5; therefore, we additionally find
Appellant has not met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 20.

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude
Appellant has not met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in finding
Kriegsman teaches a coordination plan that identifies a first web service and
a second web service; the coordination plan is identified before the first and
second providers of the first and second web services, respectively, are
identified; and the coordination plan is forwarded to the first and second
providers. Accordingly, Appellant has not met the burden of showing the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21-23, 25, 26,
28, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Kriegsman. We
additionally conclude Appellant has not met the burden of showing the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 12, 17, 18, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) for obviousness over Kriegsman and Monchilovich.
Additionally, we conclude Appellant has not met the burden of
showing the Examiner erred in finding Kriegsman teaches identifying the
coordination plan that uses a look-up table of coordination plans.
Accordingly, Appellant has not met the burden of showing the Examiner
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

22
erred in rejecting claims 9 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation
by Kriegsman.
We further conclude Appellant has not met the burden of showing the
Examiner erred in finding Kriegsman teaches optimizing file transfer
process through coordination of multiple servers. Accordingly, Appellant
has not met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Kriegsman.
We also conclude Appellant has not met the burden of showing the
Examiner erred in finding Monchilovich teaches the invitation includes a
role designation for one of the providers. Accordingly, Appellant has not
met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kriegsman and
Monchilovich.
Lastly, we conclude Appellant has not met the burden of showing the
Examiner erred in finding Monchilovich teaches the invitation includes an
identification of a location where the coordination plan is available.
Accordingly, Appellant has not met the burden of showing the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 5 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
over Kriegsman and Monchilovich.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6-11, 13-16, 21-26, and 28-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Kriegsman is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-5, 12, 17-20, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Kriegsman and Monchilovich is
affirmed.
Appeal 2008-003998
Application 10/144,342

23
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

erc

IBM CORPORATION
3039 CORNWALLIS RD.
DEPT. T81 / B503, PO BOX 12195
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 27709