Ex Parte Murren et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 14, 2010

09845752 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BRIAN T. MURREN and DANIEL L. MORRILL
____________________

Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,7521
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided: June 14, 2010
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAY P. LUCAS, and ST. JOHN COURTENAY
III, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1 to 8 and 10 to 34
under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Claim 9 is cancelled. (Brief 5). The

1 Application filed April 30, 2001. The real party in interest is General
Electric Capital Corporation.
Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,752
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We affirm the rejection.

Appellants’ invention relates to a software architecture for server
software separating the presentation code layer from the business logic code
so they can be independently modified for different business situations. In
the words of Appellants:
A multi-layer software architecture permits
efficient and timely construction of business
processes and server-based software applications
for many diverse domains, such as business-
oriented domains like asset management, leasing
and lending, inventory tracking, and so forth. The
architecture is arranged into several hierarchical
layers. An execution environment layer handles
incoming requests from remote clients and selects
the appropriate problem-solving logic to process
the requests. The problem-solving logic is
organized within a problem-solving logic layer that
defines the application for a specific problem
domain. For individual requests, the logic performs
various series of tasks to process the requests and
produce replies that will be returned to the clients.
A data abstraction layer facilitates retrieval
of data from external resources and maps the data
into a domain framework for the problem domain.
A data coordination layer provides an interface for
the logic layer to access the domain framework so
that the logic layer can obtain the data from the
resources when processing the requests. A
presentation layer structures the replies generated
by the logic into a desired appearance and encodes
the replies using formats and communication
2
Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,752
protocols supported by different clients (e.g., Web
browsers, wireless communications devices,
personal digital assistants, etc.).
The presentation layer is divided into two
tiers: a presentation tier and a rendering tier. The
presentation tier contains code that structures how
replies will appear when presented at the client. It
includes such functionality as selecting which data
or content to be displayed, performing any
transformations or manipulations of the data or
content, and selecting an output format appropriate
to the conditions, preferences, and properties of the
user and/or client device. The rendering tier
contains code that controls how the responses are
output to particular clients. The rendering tier
includes such functionality as determining how to
display, print, or otherwise render the content to
the user.
(Spec. 3, l. 26 to 4, l. 25).

Claim 1 is exemplary, and is reproduced below:
1. A server system, comprising:

one or more computers; and

an application executing on the computers to
handle client requests, the application comprising:

a business logic layer to process the client
requests according to a particular business domain
and produce replies to be returned to the clients in
response to the client requests;

a presentation layer separate from, but in
communication with, the business logic layer to
structure the replies in a manner that makes the
replies presentable on different types of client
3
Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,752
devices according to a tag library containing pre-
constructed tags for a variety of data formats; and

a request dispatcher to structure a reply for
service back to a client device, the request
dispatcher being configured to access the tag
library to obtain tags to structure the reply
according to a particular data format.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Helgeson US 6,643,652 B2 Nov. 4, 2003
(filed on Jan. 12, 2001)

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

Claims 1 to 8 and 10 to 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for being
anticipated by Helgeson.

Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by Helgeson for failure of the reference to teach claimed limitations. The
Examiner contends that each of the claims is properly rejected.
The rejection will be reviewed in the order of Appellants ’ arguments.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this opinion. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

4
Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,752
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue specifically turns
on whether Helgeson teaches the business logic layer and tag library in the
system and method as claimed.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Appellants have invented a multi-layered software architecture for
efficient construction of server software applications. (Brief 7, top). The
software’s presentation layer, which structures replies to queries to be
returned to the clients, is separate from the problem solving logic. (Spec.
45, top). This permits programmers to reuse code for different business
domains with different business logic without having to reprogram the
presentation sections of code. (Spec. 3, bottom). The presentation layer
adapts the reply for various devices, clients, branding, and other
customizations. (Spec. 14, middle). Tagged data from a tag library helps
further customize the reply for different languages, device formats and
protocols. (Spec. 34, bottom).
2. Appellants’ Figure 1 demonstrates the hardware environment of the
invention:
5
Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,752

Appellants’ Figure 1
3. Helgeson teaches a large distributed network system for servicing the
business needs of a multi-platform enterprise. (Col. 1, l. 48). The system,
viewed in Figure 17, teaches accessing multiple business servers to
answer queries from diverse clients across the business network. (Col.
134, ll. 54 to 65). Business servers, such as #1727 (mislabeled 5027 in
the figure) communicates with other business servers and generates
answer to queries. (Col. 135, l. 5). Interface servers (such as #1721)
convert the responses to the appropriate formats for the receiving clients.
6
Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,752
(Col. 135, l. 20). The customization of the responses is aided by tags
with internationalized (variable-language) specifications from a tag
library. (Col. 51, l. 67).
4. Helgeson’s Figure 4 shows the hardware environment of the reference.

Helgeson’s Figure 4

7
Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,752
PRINCIPLES OF LAW

Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).

In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“A reference does not fail as an anticipation merely because it does
not contain a description of the subject matter of the appealed claim in
ipsissimis verbis.” In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978) (citing In
re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978).

“It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.” In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).

8
Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,752
ANALYSIS
From our review of the administrative record, we find that the
Examiner presents his evidence for a prima facie case of anticipation on
pages 3 to 10 of the Examiner’s Answer. In opposition, Appellants present a
number of arguments.

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1 to 8 and 10 to 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

The Examiner has rejected the noted claims for being anticipated by
Helgeson. Appellants argue that Helgeson does not teach a “business logic
layer” as recited in the claims. (Br. 14, middle). More specifically,
Appellants argue that “data is not processed to produce replies to the client
according to a particular business domain.” (Br. 15, middle). The Examiner
has pointed particularly to the Business Server 421, which is linked to
various other servers supplying business information (Helgeson, col. 11, ll.
39 to 67; Ans. 4, top). We find that Helgeson does provide replies to clients
of different types. (Col. 11, l. 65; col. 135, l. 20). The replies containing
information within various business domains is also taught. (Col. 135, l. 49
teaches information from the Human Resources domain.). Appellants have
focused their comments on the aspect of the Helgeson system that converts
formats; however, we find the diverse teachings of Helgeson fairly present a
business logic layer teaching replies returned to the clients. (Fig 17, #5001,
5003, 5005).
Appellants argue further that Helgeson’s style sheets fail to disclose a
tag library, to obtain tags to structure a reply according to a particular data
format. (Br. 18, top; Br. 19, middle). Helgeson’s Figure 8B teaches the
9
Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,752
processing of the requested information to produce customized web content.
(Col. 51, l. 54). A tag library is disclosed including tags for various
purposes in the HTML output, including the form of the response and any
internationalization of the responsive data. (Col. 52, ll. 1 to 10). We thus
find this aspect of the claims anticipated by Helgeson, as rejected by the
Examiner.
With regard to claim 2, Appellants contend that Helgeson “fails to
disclose an application being reconfigurable” to other business domains.
(Br. 20, bottom). The Examiner points to Helgeson’s Business Development
Kit, which modifies the standard business model with enhanced security or
caching when required by other business units. (Ans. 5, top; Hegleson col. 6,
ll. 32 to 40). We do not find error in the application of this teaching.
With regard to claim 19, Appellants contend that Helgeson fails to
disclose that the presentation tier determines “at least one of (1) layout of the
data, (2) a color scheme...” (Br. 24, bottom). Helgeson, as noted above,
teaches the creation of HTML pages to display the requested data. (Col. 51,
ll. 53 to 67). The HTML pages describe the layout of the presented data,
thus anticipating this claim. (Id.). Appellants will note that only one of the
listed configuration elements need be taught in Helgeson, according to the
wording of the claim.
Appellants’ arguments with regard to the remaining claims are based
on variations of the contentions discussed above, and are not found to
demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection.

10
Appeal 2009-001810
Application 09/845,752
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in the rejection of claims 1 to 8 and 10 to 34.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 8 and 10 to 34 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb

LEE & HAYES PLLC
601 W. RIVERSIDE AVENUE
SUITE 1400
SPOKANE, WA 99201
11