Ex Parte Kamen et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 27, 200810184479 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2008) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte YURY KAMEN, BRUCE K. DANIELS, ROBERT N. GOLDBERG, and SYED M. ALI ____________ Appeal 2008-0647 Application 10/184,479 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided: June 27, 2008 ____________ Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2008-0647 Application 10/184,479 2 A. INVENTION The invention at issue involves generating a web service interface (Spec. 3). In particular, a web service description and an internal mapping are generated based on monitored traffic between an application and a client. Based on the internal mapping, a web service method call is directed to a web-based application (id.). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows: 1. A method for generating a web service interface comprising: monitoring traffic between a web-based application and a client; generating a web service description using the monitored traffic, wherein the web service description defines a web service method provided by the web service interface and wherein the web service method corresponds to a function provided by the web-based application; and generating an internal mapping using the monitored traffic, wherein the internal mapping includes functionality to direct a call for the web- service method to an appropriate portion of the web-based application. C. REJECTION Claims 1-5, 10-16, 23-27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0110373 (“Champion”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,882,996 (“Preisig”). Claims 6-9, 17-22, 28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Appeal 2008-0647 Application 10/184,479 3 being unpatentable over Champion and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0178290 (“Coulthard”). II. CLAIM GROUPING When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group of claims that are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone. 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. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).1 Appellants argue claims 1-5, 10-16, 23-27, and 29 as a first group (App. Br. 10-13) and claims 6-9, 17-22, 28, and 30 as a second group (App. Br. 13-15). We select claim 1 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of the first group and claim 6 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of the second group. 1 We cite to the version of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect at the time of the Appeal Brief. The current version includes the same rules. Appeal 2008-0647 Application 10/184,479 4 III. CLAIMS 1-5, 10-16, 23-27, AND 29 Appellants assert that “the teachings of Presig [sic] are not equivalent to the generation of a web service description as recited in independent claim 1” because Preisig is “without any mention of generating a web service description describing a web service” (App. Br. 11). Preisig discloses a servlet that “generates a service description (Web Services Description Language (WSDL) file)” (col. 2, ll. 19-20) and that “a self-contained WSDL document is generated” (col. 5, l. 7). Because Preisig discloses generating a “service description,” we disagree with Appellants’ contention that Preisig is “without mention of generating a web service description.” Appellants further argue that “the mere directing of a web service request [of Champion] to a corresponding web service is not equivalent to mapping a web service request to a corresponding internal portion of a web- based application” (App. Br. 12). Champion discloses that a “traffic manager 200 may perform a mapping between two application interfaces” (¶ [0036]) and that the “traffic manager 300 may also transform the SOAP message 320 . . . which is sent to the server program 304 and/or one or more other programs . . . in the distributed computing environment 301” (¶ [0044]). Also, “the traffic manager 300 can map a request made by the client program 302 through the SOAP Interface 314 to request for services from the server program 304” (¶ [0045]). Thus, Champion discloses that the traffic manager receives a Appeal 2008-0647 Application 10/184,479 5 request, generates a mapping, and directs the request (i.e., “SOAP message”) to a server program (i.e., “web-based application”) to provide for “control over the access of services . . . and allows implementation of various policies across different computing nodes” (¶ [0046]). To allow for the implementation of desired policies, the request of Champion is necessarily sent to an application, or portion of application, for providing the desired policy or service. To obtain the desired service or policy, the request must be sent to an “appropriate” or corresponding portion of the application for providing the service. Therefore, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument. Appellants also argue that “any attempt to equate web services to web-based applications fails to consider the definition of a web-based application recited in the specification” (App. Br. 12). The Examiner states that “it is reasonable enough to interpret a web service to a web-based application” (Ans. 19). While Appellants argue that the Specification contains a “definition of a web-based application,” Appellants do not specify the definition on which Appellants rely or point out the location within the Specification where the alleged definition exists. Nor do Appellants indicate how any alternate interpretations of the term “web services” or “web-based application,” whatever they may be, differentiate the cited prior art from claim 1. Therefore, we find Appellants’ argument unavailing. Appeal 2008-0647 Application 10/184,479 6 Appellants also argue that “Presig [sic] does not even mention an internal mapping generated using monitored traffic, as required by the pending claims” (App. Br. 12-13). Because the Examiner relies on Champion for this disclosure (Ans. 20), we do not see the relevance of Appellants’ argument even if Preisig does fail to disclose internal mapping generated using monitored traffic as Appellants assert. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It follows that Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-5, 10-16, 23-27, and 29, which fall therewith. IV. CLAIMS 6-9, 17-22, 28, AND 30 Appellants argue that while “Coulthard does teach parsing source code, Coulthard does not teach or suggest any mechanism that can be construed as an internal mapping (i.e., a mapping that includes functionality to direct a call for the web-service method to an appropriate portion of the web-based application)” (App. Br. 14). The Examiner finds that “Coulthard discloses the process of parsing source code of a web-based application” and that “the data stream of the legacy application is directed to the user interface pages (pg. 2 [0012-0016], Appeal 2008-0647 Application 10/184,479 7 pg. 5 [0035]-[0037]; pg. 7 claim 1; and as per applicant, parsing the source code of a web-based application is a well known in the art, pg. 10 [0036], AAPA)” (Ans. 21). Because Coulthard discloses parsing source code and directing data streams to interface pages, we do not find, and Appellants do not indicate, a specific error in the Examiner’s reasoning. In addition, as set forth above, Champion discloses that a “traffic manager 200 may perform a mapping” (¶ [0036]). Hence, the combination of Champion and Coulthard appears to disclose both parsing code and generating an internal mapping. As set forth above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. It follows that Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 6, and of claims 7-9, 17-22, 28, and 30, which fall therewith. V. ORDER In summary, the rejections of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. Appeal 2008-0647 Application 10/184,479 8 No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rwk OSHA LIANG L.L.P./SUN 1221 MCKINNEY, SUITE 2800 HOUSTON, TX 77010 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation