Ex Parte Lunev et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 23, 2011

11293576 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 23, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JULIAN LUNEV, DAVID ORELOWITZ,
and ROBERT MENDELOW
____________________

Appeal 2009-010983
Application 11/293,5761
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Goldman Sachs & Co.
Appeal 2009-010983
Application 11/293,576

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 2 and 4-7.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention concerns a method of operating a computer
system, running a first application program, a second application program,
and a data availability manager (DAM) program. The first application
program is operative to indicate to the DAM program that a first data item
processed by the first application program is available for further processing.
The DAM program is operative to determine that a second data item is
dependent for processing upon availability of the first data item. In an
embodiment, the second application program is operative to request the
DAM program to report the status of the second data item; in response to the
request, the DAM program may indicate that the second data item is ready
for processing (Spec. 1-2).
Claim 2 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
2. A method of operating a computer system, the method comprising:
inputting into the computer system, during a set-up mode of a data
availability manager (DAM) program, data that reflects a dependency rule
relationship, the dependency rule relationship indicating that a second data
item to be generated by a second application program cannot be generated
until a first data item to be generated by a first application program is
available;
running the first application program on the computer system;
running the second application program on the computer system;
running the DAM program on the computer system;
indicating by the first application program to the DAM program that
the first data item is available;

2 Claims 1, 3, and 8-20 have been cancelled (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2009-010983
Application 11/293,576

3
the DAM program determining that the second data item is dependent
for processing upon availability of the first data item, said determining
including the DAM program referring to said data that reflects said
dependency rule relationship;
the DAM program indicating to the second application program that
the second data item is ready for processing; and
the second application program processing the second data item in
response to the DAM program indicating that the second data item is ready
for processing, wherein the second data item is a report of securities
holdings, and the processing of the second data item by the second
application program includes generating the report of securities holdings;
wherein:
the second application program requests the DAM program to report a
status of the second data item; and
the DAM program indicates to said second application program, in
response to said request, that the second data item is ready for processing.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Fox US 2001/0034701 A1 Oct. 25, 2001
Harvey US 6,519,568 B1 Feb. 11, 2003
Claims 2 and 4-73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harvey in view of Fox.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 13, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Feb. 4, 2009) for their respective details.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
because Harvey fails to teach or suggest (a) the second application program

3 Notwithstanding the Examiner’s statement of rejection listing “Claims 2-7”
(Ans. 3), claim 3 has been cancelled.
Appeal 2009-010983
Application 11/293,576

4
requesting the DAM program to report the status of the second data item,
and (b) the DAM program indicating to the second application program, in
response to said request, that the second data item is ready for processing
(App. Br. 9).
Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings, present us with
the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Harvey and Fox teach or fairly suggest
that the second application program requests the DAM program to report the
status of the second data item?
2. Does the combination of Harvey and Fox teach or fairly suggest
that the DAM program indicates to the second application program, in
response to said request, that the second data item is ready for processing?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Harvey
1. Harvey teaches that submitting a task for dispatch comprises, inter
alia, placing the workflow order on a dispatch queue. Dispatching and
executing the task comprises processing tasks in a dispatch queue by routing
the task to an appropriate application server for execution (col. 6, ll. 26-35).
2. Harvey teaches that monitoring the task status comprises processing
status queue task dependencies, task messages, and task statistics,
maintaining task and order state statistics, identifying tasks waiting for
events, and placing tasks in a dispatch queue when task dependencies are
complete (col. 6, ll. 58-63).

Appeal 2009-010983
Application 11/293,576

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Harvey teaches that the second application
program requests the DAM program to report a status of the second data
item (Ans. 5 (citing Harvey col. 15, ll. 22-36)). The Examiner further finds
that Harvey teaches the DAM program indicating to the second application
program, in response to said request, that the second data item is ready for
processing (id. (citing Harvey Fig. 14; col. 6, ll. 53-65)).
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings. Harvey teaches that
submitting a task puts a workflow order on a dispatch queue. Tasks in a
dispatch queue are routed to an appropriate application server for execution
(FF 1). Monitoring of task status comprises processing status queue task
Appeal 2009-010983
Application 11/293,576

6
dependencies, identifying tasks waiting for events, and placing tasks in a
dispatch queue when task dependencies are complete (FF 2).4 While the
cited sections of Harvey do show a computer system directed to solving data
dependency problems, the Examiner has not identified a teaching of a
second application program that (affirmatively) requests the DAM program
to report a status of a second data item, as the claims require.
We agree with Appellants that Harvey, column 20, lines 10-34, and
column 21, lines 26-34 (previously cited by the Examiner), discusses task
dependency, and placement of tasks in a dispatch queue upon completion of
task dependencies (App. Br. 11), but does not teach a second application
program requesting the DAM program to report a status of a second data
item.
The Examiner’s argument that, under the language of the claims,
“nothing is returned to the second application program” because the claim
recites no information being returned (Ans. 7) is not persuasive. The claim
requires “indication” by the DAM program to the second application
program. We find that “indication” inherently includes and requires the
presence of information.
The Examiner’s further argument, that “the argued limitations are
disjoined features that have no impact and no effect on the method steps
recited,” because the claim also recites “the DAM program indicating to the
second application program that the second data item is ready for
processing” (Ans. 7), is not relevant to our determination of whether the
Examiner erred. The claim limitation at issue recites “indicat[ing] to said

4 Column 15’s description of web data servers and Figure 14’s depiction of
task state transitions add no further support to the Examiner’s position.
Appeal 2009-010983
Application 11/293,576

7
second application program, in response to said request” (emphasis added).
As noted supra, the combination of Harvey and Fox fails to teach or suggest
this limitation.
Because the combination of Harvey and Fox does not teach all the
limitations of claims 2 and 4-7, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under § 103. We will not sustain the rejection.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Harvey and Fox does not teach or fairly
suggest that the second application program requests the DAM program to
report the status of the second data item.
2. The combination of Harvey and Fox does not teach or fairly
suggest that the DAM program indicates to the second application program,
in response to said request, that the second data item is ready for processing.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4-7 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc