Ex Parte Kamen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2008

10184479 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2008)

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