11455371 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 7, 2011)

Ex Parte Nakamura

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 7, 2011

11455371 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 7, 2011)

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. 11/455,371 06/19/2006 Yuichi Nakamura 954-007860-US (DO2) 9762 2512 7590 07/08/2011 Perman & Green, LLP 99 Hawley Lane Stratford, CT 06614 EXAMINER ALVAREZ, RAQUEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3682 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/08/2011 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte YUICHI NAKAMURA ____________ Appeal 2009-015006 Application 11/455,371 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015006 Application 11/455,371 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002). The claimed invention is directed to a mobile agent technique, and in particular, to a mechanism for monitoring the interaction between mobile agents in a virtual mall using mobile agents1 (Spec. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A computer system comprising; an execution environment for agents, wherein said execution environment includes a monitor mechanism for monitoring a message transmitted from a customer agent addressed to a shop agent. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tada (US Pat. 5,887,171, iss. Mar. 23, 1999); claims 6 and 10-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tada in view of Official Notice; and claim 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tada in view of Weber (US Pat. 5,889,863, iss. Mar. 30, 1999). We AFFIRM. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in asserting that agent 101 transmitting a processing request message 111 to agents 103, 104, 105 via cooperation promoter 102, as disclosed in Tada, anticipates “a monitor mechanism for monitoring a message transmitted from a customer agent addressed to a shop agent,” as recited in independent claim 1? 1 Unless otherwise noted, “Spec.” references the Substitute Specification filed January 2, 2008. Appeal 2009-015006 Application 11/455,371 3 Did the Examiner err in asserting that Tada does not anticipate the subject matter of dependent claims 2-5 and 14? Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Tada, Official Notice, and Weber renders obvious the subject matter of dependent claims 6, 10-11, and 15? FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, as set forth on pages 3-9 of the Examiner’s Answer. ANALYSIS Independent Claim 1 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that agent 101 transmitting a processing request message 111 to agents 103, 104, 105 via cooperation promoter 102, as disclosed in Tada, anticipates “a monitor mechanism for monitoring a message transmitted from a customer agent addressed to a shop agent,” as recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 11- 12; Reply Br. 2). Appellant asserts that because agent 101 in Tada does not have knowledge which agent 103, 104, 105 ultimately receives processing request message 111 via cooperation promoter 102, Tada cannot disclose a customer agent addressing a message to “a (i.e., a single) shop agent as recited in Claim 1” (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2; emphasis original). Specifically, Appellant asserts that the message must be addressed to a single, specific shop agent. However, such an aspect is not set forth in the claims. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 Appeal 2009-015006 Application 11/455,371 4 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims). Agent 101, cooperation promoter 102, and agents 103, 104, 105 of Tada respectively correspond to the recited customer agent, monitor mechanism, and shop agent. Agent 101 addresses “ask(x)” to any of agents 103, 104, 105 that cooperation promoter 102 deems appropriate, as noted by the fact that cooperation promoter 102 forwards “ask(x)” to agent 103 in Figure 4. This is analogous to a user posting an item for sale on an online auction site; the post is a message addressed to all bidders under a broadest reasonable construction, even if the message is not addressed to single, specific bidders. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[d]uring examination [of a patent application, a pending claim is] given [the] broadest reasonable [construction] consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art”) (internal citation and quotations omitted). In this way, Tada anticipates “a monitor mechanism for monitoring a message transmitted from a customer agent addressed to a shop agent,” as recited in independent claim 1. Appellant also asserts that Tada does not disclose that the recited shop agent and customer agent are respectively a seller and a buyer, as set forth in paragraph [0005] of the Spec. (Reply Br. 2). However, such aspects are not set forth in the claims. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d at 1231. Indeed, paragraph [0005] of the Specification itself discloses that a seller and buyer are only examples of a shop agent and a customer agent. Appeal 2009-015006 Application 11/455,371 5 Dependent Claims 2-5 and 14 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Tada does not anticipate the subject matter of dependent claims 2-5 and 14 (App. Br. 12-13). In response to Appellant’s arguments concerning dependent claims 2-5, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning set forth on pages 7-8 of the Examiner’s Answer. For claim 14, Appellant asserts that because agents 103, 104, 105 of Tada do not know the identity of agent 101, agents 103, 104, 105 cannot address a message to agent 101 (App. Br. 13). However, similar to the logic set forth in the rejection of independent claim 1, Figure 4 of Tada discloses cooperation promoter 102 forwarding “tell(x)” from agent 104 to agent 101. Even if agent 104 does not know the identity of agent 101, “tell(x)” is still addressed to and meant for agent 101 under a broadest reasonable construction. Dependent Claims 6, 10-11, and 15 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Tada, Official Notice, and Weber renders obvious the subject matter of dependent claims 6, 10-11, and 15 (App. Br. 14-15). In response to Appellant’s arguments concerning dependent claims 6, 10-11, and 15, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning set forth on pages 8-9 of the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2009-015006 Application 11/455,371 6 The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED hh