Ex Parte Kosov et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 2011

11101773 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte YURY KOSOV and THOMAS POLLINGER
____________________

Appeal 2009-008553
Application 11/101,7731
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JAY P. LUCAS, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JAMES R.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed April 8, 2005. The real party in interest is International
Business Machines Corp. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2009-008553
Application 11/101,773

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns a data processing system
computer readable medium, and method Web Services Definition Language
(WSDL) files to application specific business objects by detecting a WSDL
file, parsing the WSDL file to generate a WSDL syntax tree, and
determining that a types section is present using the WSDL syntax tree.
(Spec. ¶ [0013].)2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A computer-implemented method in a data processing
system for mapping Web services definition language files to
application specific business objects, the method comprising:
detecting a Web services definition language (WSDL)
file;
responsive to detecting the WSDL file, parsing the
WSDL file to generate a WSDL syntax tree, wherein the

2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”)
filed June 11, 2008; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed October 22, 2008.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed August 22, 2008.
Specification as originally filed does not include line numbers or paragraph
numbers, Specification paragraph numbers refer to US Pub. No.
2006/0230057 A1.
Appeal 2009-008553
Application 11/101,773

3
WSDL syntax tree comprises a set of types used in other
sections of the WSDL file; and
determining that a types section of the WSDL file is
present using the WSDL syntax tree, wherein the types section
is defined in a schema format.

Reference
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence in support
of the rejections:
Matsushima US 2004/0267808 A1 Dec. 30, 2004

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)3 as being
anticipated by Matsushima.

ISSUE
Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us is as follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that Matsushima discloses
“detecting a Web services definition language (WSDL) file[,] . . . parsing the
WSDL file to generate a WSDL syntax tree, . . . and determining that a types
section of the WSDL file is present using the WSDL syntax tree, wherein
the types section is defined in a schema format” as recited in claim 1?

3 We note that Matsushima also qualifies a prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a).
Appeal 2009-008553
Application 11/101,773

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
Appellants’ Claim & Specification
1. Appellants’ claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “detecting a Web
services definition language (WSDL) file” and “parsing the WSDL file to
generate a WSDL syntax tree.” (App. Br. 16.) Appellants explain that
“Web Services Definition Language (WSDL). . . . is a language definition
used by Web services providers to publish available services or operations to
users over the Internet. WSDL is an open source standard available from the
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).” (Spec. ¶ [0005].) The Specification
does not explicitly define either a “WSDL syntax” or a “WSDL syntax tree.”
Examiner’s Answer - Additional References
2. WSDL definition files utilize an XML format including a tree
structure. WSDL is an “‘XML-formatted language.’” (Ans. 21 (citing
http://web.archive.org/web/20041129012621/http://www.webopedia
.com/TERM/W/WSDL.html).) XML documents have a tree structure.
(Ans. 21 (citing http://web.archive.org/web/20040402180141/
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/ REC-xm1-20040204/).)
Matsushima Reference
3. Matsushima describes generating:
a program (for example, a handler process part in an
embodiment) to perform conversion between request and
response messages in accordance with a predefined description
Appeal 2009-008553
Application 11/101,773

5
format (such as XML (extensible Markup Language)) and input
and output data formats of Web service functions from interface
definitions (such as WSDL (Web Service Description
Language)) to define interfaces of Web services.
(¶ [0019].) Also, Matsushima explains that:
The handler automatic generation part 510 is a process
part to input the interface definition 521 in accordance with
WSDL (Web Service Description Language), generate an
element tree through analysis of the syntax of a request message
described in XML (extensible Markup Language), set an
argument for function call of a Web service function (WSF)
based on the element tree, and generate and output a source
code of the handler process part to generate an element tree to
describe an XML response message including a return value
from the Web service function.
. . . .
The file input part 520 supplies the interface definition
521 designated by a user to the handler automatic creation part
510 (step S81) and informs the XML analysis part 511 (step
S82). The XML analysis part 511 generates an element tree
through analysis on the XML syntax based on the interface
definition 521 received from the file input part 520. Then, the
XML analysis part 511 reports the element tree to the type
element analysis part 515 (step S83-1), the message element
analysis part 516 (step S83-2) and further the operation element
analysis part 517 (step S83-3).
(¶¶ [0173], [0177]; Fig.17.)

ANALYSIS
Appellants present arguments with respect to independent claim 1 and
do not separately argue independent claims 11 and 16 or dependent claims
3-10, 12-15, and 17-20. (App. Br. 13.) Appellants do present nominal
arguments with respect to the separate patentability of dependent claim 2.
Appeal 2009-008553
Application 11/101,773

6
(App. Br. 14.) Therefore, we select independent claim 1 and dependent
claim 2 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and groupings. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir.
1987). We have considered only those arguments that Appellants have
actually raised in their Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants have the opportunity on appeal to the BPAI to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of a reasoned conclusion of
obviousness in the Examiner’s Answer with respect to each of Appellants’
claims (Ans. 3-26) and, in particular, claims 1 (Ans. 3-4, 19-25) and 2 (Ans.
5, 25-26). Therefore, we look to the Appellants’ Briefs to show error in the
proffered findings and reasoned conclusions. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86.
Arguments Concerning the Examiner’s Rejection
of Representative Claim 1 Under § 102
Appellants contend that: (1) “Matsushima fails to teach the feature of
‘detecting a Web services definition language (WSDL) file’” (App. Br. 12);
(2) “Matsushima fails to teach the feature of ‘responsive to detecting the
WSDL file, parsing the WSDL file to generate a WSDL syntax tree, wherein
the WSDL syntax tree comprises a set of types used in other sections of the
WSDL file’” (App. Br 11); and (3) “Matsushima fails to teach the feature of
‘determining that a types section of the WSDL file is present using the
WSDL syntax tree, wherein the types section is defined in a schema
Appeal 2009-008553
Application 11/101,773

7
format’” (App. Br. 12). In particular, Appellants contend that “the element
tree taught by Matsushima is not a WSDL syntax tree.” (App. Br. 12.)
Based on the record before us, we do not find error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 or claims 3-20. We agree
with the Examiner that Matsushima discloses detecting a WSDL file
including a type section and parsing the file to produce an element (WSDL
syntax) tree of XML elements (FF 2-3), in other words detecting a WSDL
file, “parsing the WSDL file to generate a WSDL syntax tree,” and
determining the presence of a types section of the WSDL file using the
WSDL syntax tree as required by the claim. (Ans. 3-4, 19-25.)
Appellants’ claim 1 recites, in relevant part “detecting a Web services
definition language (WSDL) file[,] . . . parsing the WSDL file to generate a
WSDL syntax tree, . . . and determining that a types section of the WSDL
file is present using the WSDL syntax tree, wherein the types section is
defined in a schema format. (App. Br. 16.) A WSDL file has an XML
format. (FF 1, 2.) Accordingly, parsing a WSDL file necessarily produces a
XML element tree. Further, Appellants fail to provide an explicit definition
of a “WSDL syntax tree” in their Specification. (FF 1.) Therefore, based on
a broad but reasonable construction of the disputed claim features, we do not
interpret Appellants’ claim recitation of a “WSDL syntax tree” to preclude a
XML element tree as disclosed by Matsushima. (FF 3.)
While Matsushima is not the model of clarity, we find that
Matsushima describes detecting a WSDL file. In order to input a particular
definition file (521) (WDSL file (522)) Matsushima must “detect” or
identify the definition file. (FF 3 (see Fig. 17); Ans. 4, 23.)
Appeal 2009-008553
Application 11/101,773

8
We also find that Matsushima describes parsing the detected WSDL
file to generate a XML element tree (a WSDL syntax tree). The input of the
WDSL file triggers analysis of the WSDL file by Matsushima’s XML
Analysis Part (511) and, utilizing the XML element tree, an input message –
“[t]hen, the XML analysis part 511 reports the element tree to . . . the
message element analysis part 516 (step S83-2).” (FF 3 (see Fig. 17); Ans.
4, 20-23.) Parsing the WSDL file to create an XML element tree is
necessarily part of this analysis. Similarly, parsing the WSDL file is also a
necessary part of the process for converting the request message to produce
a function call as disclosed by Matsushima. (FF 1, 3.) Matsushima further
describes a WSDL file – the interface definition 521 including WSDL file
521 and type definition file with an XML schema 523 – having a “types
section” and determining that a type section is present utilizing the XML
element tree – “[t]hen, the XML analysis part 511 reports the element tree to
the type element analysis part 515 (step S83-1).” (FF 3 (see Fig. 17); Ans. 4,
24-25.)
Thus, based on our claim construction, Matsushima discloses the
disputed features of “detecting a Web services definition language (WSDL)
file[,] . . . parsing the WSDL file to generate a WSDL syntax tree, . . . and
determining that a types section of the WSDL file is present using the
WSDL syntax tree, wherein the types section is defined in a schema format.”
We find Appellants’ contrary arguments unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner’s rejection for the reasons explained above. It follows that
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of representative claim 1. Appellants also do not persuade us of
error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 3-20, not separately
Appeal 2009-008553
Application 11/101,773

9
argued with particularity (supra). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 3-20.
Arguments Concerning the Examiner’s Rejection
of Representative Claim 2 Under § 102
Appellants, with respect to representative claim 2, merely reiterate the
arguments made with respect to claim 1 (supra) that Matsushima fails to
disclose a WSDL file having a type section –
[a]s Matsushima does not teach a types section of a
WSDL file, logically, Matsushima does not teach “responsive
to the types section of the WSDL file being present, generating
a set of meta business objects for the types section, wherein the
set of meta business objects hold references to the schema.”

(App. Br. 14.) We find Appellants’ contrary arguments unpersuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons explained with respect to
claim 1 above.
We note that Appellants also present additional arguments with
respect to representative claim 2 for the first time in their Reply Brief.
(Reply Br. 2-3.) We deem these arguments to be waived. Appellants have
not explained why, nor is it apparent that, these arguments were necessitated
by a new point in the Answer or any other circumstance constituting “good
cause” for their belated presentation. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (“informative”) (absent a showing of good cause,
the Board is not required to address arguments in the Reply Brief that could
have been presented in the principal Brief – “the reply brief [is not] an
opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal
brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
Appeal 2009-008553
Application 11/101,773

10
It follows that Appellants do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 2. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 2.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).

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

tkl