Ex Parte Kress et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 9, 2012

10848668 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/848,668 05/19/2004 Daryl J. Kress RA 5613 (33012/388/101) 5144
27516 7590 02/10/2012
UNISYS CORPORATION
Office of the General Counsel
801 Lakeview Drive, Suite 100
MailStop: 2NW
Blue Bell, PA 19422
EXAMINER
PHAM, KHANH B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DARYL J. KRESS and EUGENE J. GRETTER
____________

Appeal 2009-014653
Application 10/848,668
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014653
Application 10/848,668

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-21, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a apparatus for and method of
utilizing service requests to a legacy data base management system to
efficiently access external data types. To accomplish this, the external data
types are dynamically mapped into data types compatible with the legacy
data base management system. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. An apparatus for honoring a service request comprising:

a. a terminal which generates said service request;

b. a hardware server containing a legacy data base
management system having a data type responsively coupled to
said terminal which receives said service request;

c. a legacy data base having external data incompatible with
said data type and responsively coupled to said data base
management system which must be accessed by said legacy
data base management system to honor said service request;
and

d. a facility responsively located within said legacy data
base management system and said legacy data base which
permits honoring of said service request by dynamically
mapping said external data into said data type.
Appeal 2009-014653
Application 10/848,668

3

Prior Art
ROWE US 2001/0003846 A1 Jun. 14, 2001
RANGNEKAR US2005/0192851 A1 Sep. 1, 2005

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Rangnekar.
Claims 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rangnekar and Rowe.

PRINCIPAL ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Rangnekar discloses “a facility
responsively located within said legacy data base management system and
said legacy database which permits honoring of said service request by
dynamically mapping said external data into said data type” as recited in
claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1-5
The Examiner finds that the “hardware server containing a legacy data
base management system” as recited in claim 1 is described by the web
server 24 and the ATM display 12 shown in Figure 4 of Rangnekar. Ans. 4.
The Examiner also finds that paragraph 7 of Rangnekar discloses “a facility
responsively located within said legacy data base management system and
said legacy database which permits honoring of said service request by
dynamically mapping said external data into said data type” as recited in
Appeal 2009-014653
Application 10/848,668

4
claim 1. Id. Appellants contend that the claimed facility is located within
the claimed legacy data base management system. Br. 16. Appellants also
contend that the centralized reservation system described in paragraph 7 of
Rangnekar is neither located within ATM 12 nor web server 24. Br. 18-19.
We find that paragraph 7 of Rangnekar does not describe “a facility
responsively located within said legacy data base management system and
said legacy database which permits honoring of said service request by
dynamically mapping said external data into said data type.” Paragraph 7
mentions that only trained persons are capable of working on legacy
centralized reservation systems. Paragraph 7 of Rangnekar describes the
problem that is solved by the facility recited in claim 1. The Examiner has
not provided evidence or explanation to establish that the facility which
permits honoring a service request from a terminal by dynamically mapping
external data into a data type is located in a legacy data base management
system and legacy data base. The Examiner has not identified any other
portion of Rangnekar that corresponds to the claimed facility.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and corresponding
dependent claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 102 rejection of claims 6-10
Appellants contend that the Examiner has ignored “receiving said
service request by a hardware server hosting said legacy data base
management system” as recited in claim 6. Br. 21-22. The Examiner finds
that the web server 24 and the ATM display 12 shown in Figure 4 of
Rangnekar correspond to the “hardware server hosting said legacy data base
management system” as recited in claim 6. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2009-014653
Application 10/848,668

5
The Examiner has not provided evidence or explanation to establish
that web server 24 hosts a legacy data base management system. In fact,
paragraph 92 of Rangnekar states that the legacy centralized reservation
system 30 is hosted by server 32. We find that the portion of Rangnekar
cited by the Examiner does not disclose “receiving said service request by a
hardware server hosting said legacy data base management system” as
recited in claim 6.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 and corresponding
dependent claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 102 rejection of claims 11-14
The Examiner finds that paragraph 107 and Figures 5B and 6 of
Rangnekar describe “offering means responsively coupled to said permitting
means for offering legacy data base management services using a scripted
command language and having an internal data type” as recited in claim 11.
According to the Examiner, the “offering means” encompasses Javascript.
Ans. 7. However, claim 11 recites “offering means responsively coupled to
said permitting means for offering legacy data type.” The Examiner has
failed to address the “offering means” recited in claim 11.
Further, a claim limitation is presumed to invoke § 112, ¶6 when it
explicitly uses the phrase “means for” or “step for” and includes functional
language. That presumption is overcome when the limitation further
includes the structure necessary to perform the recited function. See U.S.
Patent & Trademark Office, Supplementary Examination Guidelines for
Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related
Issues in Patent Applications, Part 1, § III.C.3, 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7167
Appeal 2009-014653
Application 10/848,668

6
(Feb. 9, 2011). If the claim limitation invokes § 112, ¶ 6, the claim
limitation must be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Id. at 7164.
The “means for” limitations recited in claim 11 are set forth in purely
functional terms and do not describe structure. Therefore, claim 11 invokes
§ 112, ¶6. We must construe the “offering means” limitation to cover the
corresponding structure described in the Specification on pages 7-8 and
Figure 1, elements 20 and 22 and equivalents thereof. Br. 10. Figure 1
shows an enterprise server 20 and accompanying storage subsystem 22. The
Examiner has not explained how paragraph 107, Figures 5B, 6 and the
Javascript described by Rangnekar correspond to an enterprise server and
storage subsystem within the meaning of claim 11.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 or corresponding
dependent claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 102 rejection of claims 16-19
The Examiner finds that the frequent flyer input and the customer
relationship input number shown in Figure 6 of Rangnekar corresponds to
the facility recited in claim 16. Ans. 9. However, the Examiner has not
explained how the frequent flyer input and customer relationship input
number shown in Figure 6 of Rangnekar describe “a facility responsively
coupled between said legacy data base management system and said external
data type for mapping said external data type to a form compatible with said
legacy data base permitting said legacy data base management system to
access said external data type” as recited in claim 16.
Appeal 2009-014653
Application 10/848,668

7
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 or corresponding
dependent claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 102 rejection of claim 21
The Examiner finds that the airline reservation link shown in Figure 7
of Rangnekar corresponds to the facility recited in claim 21. Ans. 10.
However, the Examiner has not explained how an airline reservation link
describes “a facility located within said legacy data base management
system and said legacy data base which permits honoring of said service
request by dynamically mapping said external data into said data type to
provide access to said legacy data base by said BIS type legacy data base
management system” as recited in claim 21.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 103 rejection of claims 15 and 20
The Examiner finds that Rowe teaches a personal computer. Ans. 11.
However, the Examiner has not explained how the combination of
Rangnekar and Rowe teaches the “offering means” of base claim 11 or the
facility of base claim 16. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 15 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2009-014653
Application 10/848,668

8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Rangnekar discloses “a facility
responsively located within said legacy data base management system and
said legacy database which permits honoring of said service request by
dynamically mapping said external data into said data type” as recited in
claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Rangnekar is reversed.
The rejection of claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rangnekar and Rowe is reversed.

REVERSED

ke