Ex Parte Marwinski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201612238681 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/238,681 09/26/2008 Dirk MARWINSKI 2007P00403US01 2020 62730 7590 SAP SE 3410 HILLVIEW AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94304 EXAMINER VICARY, KEITH E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2182 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2017 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): APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM GIPinhouse@sap.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DIRK MARWINSKI and THOMAS MUELLER1 Appeal 2016-004102 Application 12/238,681 Technology Center 2100 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—9 and 11—202. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 2. 2 Claim 10 is canceled. App. Br. 15. Appeal 2016-004102 Application 12/238,681 BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to a method of job scheduling in an application server to automate business processes. See Spec. 130. Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows: 1. A computerized method comprising: deploying environment metadata of a job in a first execution environment running a first plurality of software components installed therein, wherein the job is a software component deployable and executable in the first execution environment; deploying additional metadata of the job in a second execution environment running a second plurality of software components installed therein, wherein the first execution environment and the second execution environment are separately provided at an application server; creating a scheduler task in the second execution environment based on the additional metadata of the job, wherein the scheduler task is associated with a starting condition; starting the scheduler task at the second execution environment based on an occurrence of the starting condition; and invoking asynchronously an execution of an instance of the job at the first execution environment in response to the starting of the scheduler task in the second execution environment. PRIOR ART AND REJECTIONS Claims 1—9 and 11—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by “Using Timers in J2EE Applications” by Debu Panda (“Panda”). See Final Act. 5—18. Claims 1—9 and 11—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Panda and “J2EE A Distributed Component Architecture Model” by Brevoort et al. (“Brevoort”). See Final Act. 18—34. 2 Appeal 2016-004102 Application 12/238,681 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Brief and the Examiner’s response in the Answer. We agree with Appellants’ arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. 102(b) Rejection of Claims 1—9 and 11—20 Appellants argue that Panda does not teach a “first execution environment running a first plurality of software components installed therein,” a “second execution environment running a second plurality of software components installed therein,” and “the first execution environment and the second execution environment are separately provided at an application server,” as recited in claim 1, and recited similarly in independent claim 12. App. Br. 6. Appellants assert that Panda discloses only a single execution environment, the EJB container or J2EE Container, where both the Time Service and EJB software components are executed. Id.', see Reply Br. 1—2. The Examiner finds that the term “execution environment” is not specifically defined by the original disclosure and asserts that Panda’s EJB block and Timer Service can reasonably be interpreted as the claimed first and second execution environments. Ans. 4— 5 (citing Panda Fig. 1). Appellants’ argument is persuasive. We begin our analysis by first considering the scope and meaning of the claim term “execution environment,” which must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that during examination “claims must be interpreted as 3 Appeal 2016-004102 Application 12/238,681 broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). Although the Examiner is correct that the specification does not provide a clear definition of the term, the claims constrain the term to include an execution environment “running a [] plurality of software components installed therein.” Claim 1. Accordingly, we construe the claim term “execution environment” as set forth in the claims as an environment with software executing and installed therein. In view of this claim construction, the Examiner does not direct us to sufficient support in Panda to conclude that Panda’s Timer Service can be interpreted as the claimed second execution environment. Panda describes the relationship between the Timer Service and the EJB by stating the “EJB container provides the time service” and that the “EJB container manages the timer service.” Panda 1; see App. Br. 6. Panda further discloses that the code for the Timer Service is included within the EJB because in order to use the Timer Service, the class of the EJB must implement the appropriate timer code. Panda 2—3. Finally, the timer provided for by the Timer Service is created by invoking the createTimer method when creating the EJB or in a business method of the EJB. Id. at 3. The aforementioned portions of Panda describe the Timer Service as a software component itself and not an execution environment running a first plurality of software components installed therein as claimed. Id. The Examiner does not direct us to a disclosure in Panda that describes the Timer Service as an execution environment separate from the EJB. For these reasons, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, independent claim 12 which recites similar limitations as claim 1, and dependent claims 2—9, 11 and 13—20. 4 Appeal 2016-004102 Application 12/238,681 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1—9 and 11—20 The Final Rejection provided a separate ground of rejection combining Panda with Brevoort’s teachings of multiple execution environments (containers) within a single application server. Ans. 5. If Panda is viewed as noted above as not teaching a first and a second execution environment, the Examiner finds Brevoort remedies the deficiency of Panda by teaching the use of multiple execution environments and inter container communication techniques such that Panda’s Timer Service and EJB could be implemented in separate execution environments. Id. at 5—6; see Final Act. 18—21. Specifically, the Examiner relies only on Brevoort’s statement that an “application server is an environment for containers, providing runtime services such as clustering, fail-over, load balancing, and inter-container communication.” Final. Act. 20—21 (citing Brevoort 6). On this basis, the Examiner determined “the method of Panda as performed in a single execution environment in an application server, when combined according to known methods with the teaching of Brevoort of multiple execution environments in an application server and inter-container communication yields the predictable result of the method of Panda as implemented using multiple execution environments in an application server via inter-container communication.” Id. at 21. The Examiner further explains that when combined in this manner, “the communication between the EJB and the Timer Service (shown in Figure 1 of Panda) is instead implemented as communication between different containers, wherein the EJB and the Timer Service are located in respective containers.” Ans. 5—6. 5 Appeal 2016-004102 Application 12/238,681 Appellants argue that there is “no indication that a skilled person would be able to combine Brevoort and Panda in order to separate the execution environment of Panda (EJB container) into two execution environments” at least because “the timer service in Panda is provided and managed by the EJB container ‘to allow EJB methods to register to call back at a scheduled time or regular interval.’” Reply Br. 4. In other words, Appellants argue that Panda’s timers are a part of, and tied to, a particular EJB, and it would not have been obvious to separate and place the timer in its own execution environment. See id. As explained by Appellant, Panda’s Timer Service is provided and managed by the EJB and uses a Timer Service application programming interface (API) to communicate with the EJB. Reply Br. 4; see Panda 1—3. Appellants also contend that “[njeither Panda nor Brevoort suggest how inter-container communications techniques for communication between containers would replace Panda’s built-in API of the Timer Service built-in in the EJB containers.” Reply Br. 4. Lastly, Appellants contend that the acknowledgement that techniques for inter container communication are provided in application servers based on J2EE specification does not constitute sufficient teaching or suggestion for implementation in the J2EE application server of Panda. Id. We agree with Appellants’ arguments. In other words, we agree that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness does not provide sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for modifying Panda’s API Timer Service provided and managed by EJB container (see Panda 1—3, Fig. 1) to a Timer Service and an EJB located in respective containers with inter container communication, based on Brevoort’s teaching that an “application server is an environment for containers, providing runtime services such as 6 Appeal 2016-004102 Application 12/238,681 clustering, fail-over, load balancing, and inter-container communication.” Brevoort 6; see In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (quoted with approval in KSR Inti. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2006)). For these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1, independent claim 12 which recites similar limitations as claim 1, and dependent claims 2—9, 11 and 13—20. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—9 and 11—20. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation