Ex Parte Nun et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 9, 201613648664 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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. 13/648,664 10/10/2012 Yiftach Nun 2012P00042US 8075 52025 7590 12/13/2016 SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC 50 LOCUST AVENUE NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 EXAMINER WEINRICH, BRIAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2016 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): martin @ BMTPATENT.COM szpara@bmtpatent.com colabella@bmtpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YIFTACH NUN and INBAL ZILBERMAN KUBOVSKY Appeal 2015-008132 Application 13/648,6641 Technology Center 2100 Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 8-13, 15—19, and 21 which are all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP AG. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 6, 7, 14, and 20 have been canceled. Appeal 2015-008132 Application 13/648,664 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ application relates to receiving a request for a Representational State Transfer (REST) or Open Data Protocol (OData) object at an input field and suggesting a file associated with the REST or OData object. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving a URI associated with a RESTful application at an input field; and suggesting, via a processor, a plurality of previously opened REST or OData objects associated with the RESTful application; receiving a selection of one of the plurality of previously opened REST or OData objects associated with the RESTful application; and displaying, by using ODATA navigation over the selected REST or OData object, sub-objects of the one of the plurality of previously opened REST or OData objects in response to the selection. The Examiner’s Rejection3 Claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baldwin (US 2010/0094884 Al; Apr. 15, 2010), Smit (US 2006/0075120 Al; Apr. 6, 2006), and Ji (US 2013/0019314 Al; Jan. 17, 2013). Ans. 2—4. 3 In the Non-Final Action, claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-19, and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Non-Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner withdrew this rejection in the Answer. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal 2015-008132 Application 13/648,664 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Baldwin, Smit, and Ji do not teach or suggest using ODATA navigation over a selected REST or OData object to display sub-objects of the selected REST or OData object. App. Br. 6. Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in relying on Official Notice that IBM WebSphere is a client implementation for OData. App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants argue WebSphere is a trademark, not a product. Id. Appellants argue WebSphere Application Server is a software product that performs the role of a web application server, but does not suggest the use of OData. Id. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Baldwin teaches displaying a REST response object using a REST service. Ans. 2-3 (citing Baldwin 118). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Smit teaches an IBM WebSphere that receives and interprets REST objects. Ans. 3. We also agree with the Examiner that Ji teaches using IBM WebSphere. Ans. 4 (citing Ji || 66, 74, 87, 94, 97, 163). The Examiner takes Official Notice that IBM WebSphere includes 3 Appeal 2015-008132 Application 13/648,664 WebSphere Application Server, a software product that uses OData. Ans. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that WebSphere is merely a trademark, not a software product, because WebSphere is a trademark used by IBM to designate software products. Ans. 4. Appellants also argue the use of WebSphere Application Server does not suggest the use of OData, but Appellants present no evidence to support this argument. See App. Br. 7. The Examiner took Official Notice that WebSphere, including WebSphere Application Server, allows the use of OData, and cited evidence to support this fact, which Appellants have not persuasively rebutted. See Ans. 4-5. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Baldwin, Smit, and Ji teaches or suggests “displaying, by using ODATA Navigation over the selected REST or OData object, sub objects of the one of the plurality of previously opened REST or OData objects in response to the selection.” We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants argue the patentability of claims 9 and 15 for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 8. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 15 for the same reasons. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 8, 10-13, 16-19, and 21, which were not argued separately from their respective independent claims. Id. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 8-13, 15-19, and 21. 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 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation