Ex Parte Ku et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 27, 2005

09734805 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 27, 2005)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte WILLIAM HSIAO-YU KU and JOEY ALLEN PERRY
__________
Appeal No. 2005-0599
Application 09/734,805
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-39,
which are all of the claims in the application.
THE INVENTION
The appellants claim a method, computer-readable medium and
interface repository search facility for searching program object
Appeal No. 2005-0599
Application 09/734,805

2
interface repositories. Claim 1, which claims the method, is
illustrative:
1. A method for allowing a user to search program object
interface repositories, said Interface Repository (IR) comprising
an on-line database accessible through Object Request Broker
(ORB) protocol, said interface repositories being stored on one
or more server computers and containing metadata or definitions
of said available program component interfaces, the method
comprising the steps of:
providing a plurality of search criteria fields and a search
icon on a graphical user display of a networked client computer;
receiving one or more criterion input from a user via said
search criteria fields followed by selection of the search icon;
performing at least one search of at least one IR using
said ORB protocol for interfaces to available program objects for
which a match exists between the program objects’ specifications
and the criterion input; and
displaying a list of available interfaces to program objects
which match said criterion input on said graphical user display.
THE REFERENCE
Hogan et al. (Hogan) 5,778,368 Jul. 7, 1998
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hogan.
Appeal No. 2005-0599
Application 09/734,805

3
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection.
Each of the appellants’ independent claims requires using
Object Request Broker (ORB) protocol to search at least one
interface repository for interfaces to available program objects
for which a match exists between the program object’s
specifications and search criterion input.
Hogan discloses a Real-Time Embedded Software (RTES)
apparatus and method for facilitating reuse and visibility of
RTES (col. 5, lines 32-34). The apparatus includes at least one
repository client and at least one repository server (col. 5,
lines 44-46). “Generally, the Repository Client accesses a
Repository Server which, in turn, searches for the Repository
Units in the ‘accessed’ Repository database that match the
attributes criterion. If there are no matches found in the
‘accessed’ Repository database, then the Repository Server
searches other unrestricted repository databases until matching
Repository Units are detected” (col. 9, lines 17-23).
Appeal No. 2005-0599
Application 09/734,805

1 This portion of Hogan states: “In the preferred
embodiment, the Repository System utilizes the TCP/IP protocol
suite for networking support and services.”
4
The examiner argues that Hogan’s “repositories are
accessible through the TCP/IP protocol (Col. 11, lines 9-10)[1],
which is readable an [sic, on] ORB since it is a protocol that
permits access to programming objects through a brokering
interface (FIG. 4)” (answer, page 3).
The appellants argue (brief, page 8):
TCP/IP consists of two pieces of protocol:
Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet
Protocol (IP). TCP runs at Layer 4 [of the Open
Systems Interconnection (OSI) model] as a Transport
protocol, breaking large amounts of data into packets,
sequencing the packets, resending erred packets, etc.
IP runs at Layer 3 as a Network protocol, performing
routing and forwarding of data to their proper
destinations according to addresses (e.g. IP
addresses).
By contrast, CORBA is a total architecture for
enabling distributed program components to invoke each
other, without having to copy the components from their
original point of storage to be executed on a local
processor. So, CORBA has a specific, high level
protocol for programs needing to find other programs to
contact a Broker service. That high level protocol
runs at Layer 7 in the OSI model as an Application.
The examiner responds (answer, page 6):
However, Examiner has never stated that the TCP/IP
protocol discussed by Hogan et al. fully equates to the
CORBA system. Examiner’s findings are that the present
set of claims do not invoke CORBA at all. As a result,
appellant’s arguments that CORBA and TCP/IP are
Appeal No. 2005-0599
Application 09/734,805

2 See Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 588 (Miller Freeman 1999),
a copy of which is provided to the appellants with this decision.
5
dissimilar are essentially moot because examiner does
not find that CORBA is ever even being called for in
this claim set.
The appellants’ claims require searching using ORB, and
CORBA is an ORB standard.2 Hence, it was improper for the
examiner to dismiss the appellants’ argument as moot.
To establish a prima facie case of anticipation the examiner
must provide evidence or technical reasoning which shows that
Hogan discloses, expressly or inherently, searching using ORB.
See Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d
1251, 1255-56, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1965 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The
examiner’s argument that TCP/IP “is readable an [sic, on] ORB
since it is a protocol that permits access to programming objects
through a brokering interface (FIG. 4)” (answer, page 3) does not
provided the required evidence or technical reasoning which shows
that even if both TCP/IP and ORB can be involved in permitting
access to programming objects through a brokering interface, they
serve the same function in permitting that access rather than
functioning at different levels of the OSI model as argued by the
Appeal No. 2005-0599
Application 09/734,805

6
appellants (brief, pages 7-8). The examiner, therefore, has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facia case of
anticipation of the appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Hogan is reversed.
REVERSED
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO/ki
Appeal No. 2005-0599
Application 09/734,805

7
IBM Corporation (RHF)
C/O Robert H. Frantz
P.O. Box 23324
Oklahoma City, OK 73123