Ex Parte Mamas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2017

10492095 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2017)

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.
10/492,095 04/08/2004 Evangelos Mamas CA920010063US1 4252
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EVANGELOS MAMAS1
Appeal 2015-000260
Application 10/492,095
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—6, which constitute all the claims pending in the application. App. Br. 1.
Claims 7—10 have been canceled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
Br. 2. This appeal relates to Appeal No. 2011-000082 (decided June 19,
2013) in which we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6.
Appeal 2015-000260
Application 10/492,095
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to wireless messaging
services for wireless-application-enabled devices using publish/subscribe
systems (Spec. 1:5—6).
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method of brokering messages between a publisher
application and at least one wireless subscriber using a
combined publish/subscribe and push paradigm, the method
comprising steps of:
receiving, within a message queuing system of a
publish/subscribe message broker, a data message published on
a topic from the publisher application, the message queuing
system implementing a combined publish/subscribe and push
paradigm; and
using a wireless push protocol to distribute the data
message to a wireless subscriber that has subscribed for
messages on the topic about which the data message was
published.
Reference
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tso US 6,047,327 Apr. 4,2000
Admitted Prior Art
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1—6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tso and the admitted prior art. Final Act. 2—9, Ans. 2—7.
2
Appeal 2015-000260
Application 10/492,095
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed June 23, 2014), and have reviewed the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
dated August 6, 2014) to Appellant’s arguments. Only those arguments
actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments that Appellant did not make in the Brief have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Statement of Issues
Appellant does not provide separate arguments for the patentability of
dependent claims 2—6. Accordingly, we treat the issues raised by Appellant
with respect to independent claim 1 as representative of the issues for all
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant’s arguments thus present
us with the following issues:
1. Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Tso
and the admitted prior art teaches or suggests “receiving, within a message
queuing system of a publish/subscribe message broker, a data message
published on a topic from the publisher application, the message queuing
system implementing a combined publish/subscribe and push paradigm,” as
recited in independent claim 1. Br. 3—7.
2. Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Tso
and the admitted prior art teaches or suggests “using a wireless push
protocol to distribute the data message to a wireless subscriber that has
subscribed for messages on the topic about which the data message was
published,” as recited in independent claim 1.
3
Appeal 2015-000260
Application 10/492,095
Issue 1
Tso relates to “the automatic distribution of information to different
users based on a set of selected criteria.” Tso 1:9—10. Figure 4 of Tso
illustrates a logical diagram of a “reporter” configured to receive
information provided by a content provider. Id. at 13:9-15. Figure 5 of Tso
provides a flow diagram that illustrates a method in which a server receives
broadcast information from a content provider, filters the information
according to certain criteria that include those defined by a user profile, and
sends the filtered information to a client through a messaging interface. Id.
at 13:35—14:34. Tso discloses specifically that the messaging interface
interacts with a “GSM network,” i.e., a Global System for Mobile
communications. Id. at 11:19—23.
Drawing an equivalence between the content provider and a
“publisher,” the Examiner relies on these disclosures to conclude that Tso
discloses “receiving with a message system of [a] publish/subscribe message
broker, a data message published on a topic from the publisher application,
the message system implementing a combined publish/subscribe and push
paradigm.” Ans. 2—3. In addressing the “receiving” limitation of
independent claim 1, the Examiner acknowledges that Tso “does not
explicitly show a message queuing system implementing a combined
publish/subscribe and push paradigm.” Id. at 4. For the “message queuing
system” aspect of the limitation, the Examiner cites art admitted in the
Specification of the subject application, including that in a “typical”
integration scenario, “[mjessages are stored at intermediate queues in the
network until the [message queuing] system is able to process them.” Spec.
4
Appeal 2015-000260
Application 10/492,095
2:4—5. The Examiner reasons that, given this teaching, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have readily recognized the advantage of modifying
Tso by employing such message queuing with the publish/subscribe and
push paradigm taught by Tso, “for the advantage of improved refinement of
the selection [of] the messages to be sent to subscribers, thus providing a
more selective and therefore more efficient method of distributing
information.” Ans. 4—5. The Examiner’s reasoning is supported by rational
underpinning.
Appellant contends that the admitted prior art “does not teach a
combined publish/subscribe and push paradigm.” Br. 6. But, as clarified in
both the Final Rejection dated February 3, 2014, and the Answer, the
Examiner relies on Tso for such a teaching and applies the admitted prior art
for the limited teaching of message queuing. Ans. 8 (“In fact, TSO teaches
all the elements of the invention, except TSO is silent [about] the message
queuing aspect.”); Final Rejection dated February 3, 2014, at 2 (same).
Appellant’s argument is incommensurate with the Examiner reasoning.
We accordingly conclude that Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred.
Issue 2
Although Appellant correctly reproduces the text of claim 1 in the
Claims Appendix of its Brief, Appellant presents an argument for the
“using” limitation based on different language: “Appellant’s invention
requires that the wireless push protocol is used by the message queuing
system, not by the WAP push proxy gateway.” Br. 7 (emphasis added). In
an After-Final Amendment filed March 27, 2014, Appellant proposed to add
5
Appeal 2015-000260
Application 10/492,095
the language “by the message queuing system” to the claim, but that
amendment was not entered by the Examiner because it raises new issues
that would require further consideration and/or search. Amendment dated
March 27, 2014 at 2; Advisory Action dated April 10, 2014 at 3.
Appellant’s argument is thus incommensurate with the scope of the claim.
We accordingly conclude that Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that Appellant has not shown
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tso and the admitted prior art. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2—6, which stand or fall
together.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6