Ex Parte Otto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2016

13022420 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/022,420 02/07/2011
6449 7590 10/07/2016
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
607 14th Street, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
Matthew Otto
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2566-506 6649
EXAMINER
ALLADIN, AMBREEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2016 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):
PTO-PAT-Email@rfem.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW OTTO and JOSEPH WEITEKAMP
Appeal2014-005735 1
Application 13/022,4202
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An
oral hearing in this appeal was held on August 25, 2016.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
October 15, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed April 7, 2014), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed February 5, 2014) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed February 13, 2013). The record includes a
transcript of the oral hearing.
2 Appellants identify ITG Software Solutions, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005735
Application 13/022,420
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "generally relates to systems and
methods for providing electronic access to financial trading services and,
more particularly, to systems and methods for providing access to financial
trading services via electronic networks through the use of multiple service
buses that can be individually configured to optimize access to financial
trading services of diverse technical implementations without the need for
bridging" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing
access to financial trading services, comprising:
identifying financial trading services that will be
accessible to an end user, wherein the end user is associated with
an interface component;
determining performance requirements for each financial
trading service, wherein the performance requirements relate to
at least one of latency and reliability for each financial trading
service;
creating, by a computer, at least a first service bus and a
second service bus, wherein the first service bus and the second
service bus are both associated with the interface component,
wherein the first and second service buses have performance
characteristics related to at least one of latency and reliability,
and wherein a performance characteristic of the first service bus
differs from a performance characteristic of the second service
bus;
determining a first group of financial trading services that
will be accessible via the first service bus and a second group of
financial trading services will be accessible via the second
service bus; and
attaching, by the computer, the first group of financial
trading services to the first service bus and the second group of
financial trading services to the second service bus.
2
Appeal2014-005735
Application 13/022,420
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dankle (US 2010/0082737 Al, pub. Apr. 1, 2010), Skeen
(US 5,557,798, iss. Sept. 17, 1996), and Brown (US 2009/0070456 Al,
pub. Mar. 12, 2009).
Claims 3, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
unpatentable over Dankle, Skeen, Brown, and Morano
(US 2005/0097026 Al, pub. May 5, 2005).
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
as unpatentable over Dankle, Skeen, Brown, and Patrick
(US 2008/0069124 Al, pub. Mar. 20, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2-5, 7, and 8
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Brown, on
which the Examiner relies, fails to disclose or suggest that "an 'end user,'
'the first service bus and the second service bus' are 'associated with the
interface component,' as required by claim l" (App. Br. 14).
By way of background, Brown discloses a method and system for
creating a federation of enterprise service busses ("ESBs"), including a
plurality of ESB nodes that provide connectivity to one or more services,
including the routing of messages among the various services (see, e.g.,
Brown i-f 20). Referencing Figure 9, Brown discloses, in paragraphs 38--40,
cited by the Examiner, that in response to one of the ESB nodes receiving a
service request either directly from a service requester or forwarded from
3
Appeal2014-005735
Application 13/022,420
another ESB node, the service request is passed to a routing mediation
procedure within the ESB node. The routing mediation performs a table
lookup to determine a destination to which the service request should be
sent. And the service request is then forwarded to the identified ESB node
that provides connectivity for the particular service being requested.
Appellants ostensibly contend that Brown fails to meet the claim
language because "Brown fails to disclose an interface component that
transmits messages to multiple service busses without the use of bridges"
(App. Br. 14 (emphasis omitted)). Appellants note that "Brown discloses
that a service request originates at a bus node (e.g., a service), which is
located on a specific bus" (id. at 15 (citing Brown i-f 38, Fig. 9)). And
Appellants argue that this is different from the claimed invention in which
"service requests (from a user) do not originate on a specific bus" (id. (citing
Spec. i-f 36)), but instead are "directly transmitted to the claimed interface
component - which is associated with the end user and is not a bus - to be
routed directly to the appropriate bus" (id.). Appellants, thus, reason that
"[ s ]ince Brown discloses that a service request originates at a bus, rather
than at the claimed interface component associated with the user and
multiple busses, Brown requires the service request to be routed to a second
bus (via a bridge) if the requested service is not located on the bus where the
request originated" (id.).
Appellants admittedly describe in the Specification that the invention
relates to system and methods for "providing access to financial trading
services via electronic networks through the use of multiple service buses
that can be individually configured to optimize access to financial trading
services ... without the need for bridging" (Spec. i-f 1 ). The Specification
4
Appeal2014-005735
Application 13/022,420
also discloses a multi-bus system in which end users have access to service
busses and available services, via interface components that communicate
directly with multiple service busses (see, e.g., Spec. i-f 22, Fig. 3). Yet there
is no mention of "bridging" in the claim language.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants are "arguing
interpretations of the claims that are not presented in the claim set, but rather
are derived from the specification without being claimed" (Ans. 13).
Limitations appearing in the specification, but not recited in a claim, are not,
however, to be read into the claim. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp.,
343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appellants assert, for the first time, in the Reply Brief, that Brown
fails to disclose or suggest a single interface component associated with an
end user and two busses because "any alleged disclosure of an interface
component in Brown (i.e., the purported routing mediation procedure in a
bus node) is associated with a single, specific bus, and not multiple busses
and an end user as claimed" (Reply Br. 3--4). That argument is untimely,
and is waived here in the absence of any showing of good cause why the
argument could not have been timely presented in Appellants' Appeal Brief.
See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an
argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal);
Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative)
(explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the
Principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a
showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been
presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477
(BP AI 2010) (informative) ("Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require
5
Appeal2014-005735
Application 13/022,420
the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the
Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.").
However, even were that not so, Brown discloses that, in response to
one of the ESB nodes receiving a service request from an end user, the
routing mediation procedure within the ESB, e.g., the first ESB, performs a
table lookup to determine a destination to which the service request should
be sent, and forwards the request to the identified ESB, e.g., the second ESB,
that provides connectivity for the particular service being requested. Brown,
thus, discloses that the routing mediation procedure, i.e., the claimed
"interface component," is "associated" with the end user, and with the first
and second ESBs, under a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of that term.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8, which are not argued separately except with
reference to the arguments set forth with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 17, 18,
21-22, 23).
Dependent Claim 6
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting dependent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because none of the
cited references discloses or suggests "assigning the financial trading
services to the first and second service buses based at least in part on the
performance requirements of each financial trading service and the
performance characteristics of the first and second service buses," as recited
in claim 6 (App. Br. 17-18).
The Examiner cites paragraphs 31, 35, and 36 of Dankle as disclosing
the argued limitation (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 15). However, we agree
6
Appeal2014-005735
Application 13/022,420
with Appellants that although Dankle discloses two endpoints on a single
service bus, where one endpoint is for low priority requests and one endpoint
is for high priority requests, i.e., prioritizing individual service requests, we
find nothing in the cited portions of Dankle that discloses or suggests
assigning services to different service buses based on the performance
requirements of each financial trading service or the performance
characteristics of the service buses, as recited in claim 6.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent Claim 9 and Dependent Claims 10--15
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that none of the cited
references discloses or suggests "receiving, by a computer, a first financial
trading service request message via a first service bus ... and a second
financial trading service request message via a second service bus ...
wherein the first and second financial trading service request messages were
generated by a financial trading service consumer and routed via an interface
component," as recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 18-19).
Appellants argue that none of the cited references meets the language
of claim 9 because none of Dankle, Skeen, and Brown discloses "an
interface component, implemented on a computer, that may route request
messages via both a first service bus and/or a second service bus using only
a single bus (e.g., without the use of a bridge)" (id. at 18). Specifically
addressing Dankle and Brown, Appellants, thus, assert that in both the
Dankle and Brown systems, in order to access services situated on different
busses, e.g., a first bus and a second bus, the service request must be
transmitted, via a bridge, from the first bus to the second bus "because there
7
Appeal2014-005735
Application 13/022,420
is no disclosed interface component that may directly transmit requests via
multiple busses" (id. at 19).
The difficulty with Appellants' argument is that it is not
commensurate with the claim language. Claim 9 recites that "the first and
second financial trading service request messages were generated by a
financial trading service consumer and routed via an interface component."
But there is nothing in the claim language that precludes the use of a bridge
for transmitting a service request from a first bus to a second bus.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner's rejections
of dependent claims 10-15, which are not argued separately except with
reference to the arguments set forth with respect to claim 9 (id. at 19-20, 22,
23).
Independent Claim 16 and Dependent Claims 17-20
Claim 16 is directed to a computerized system for accessing financial
services, and recites that the system comprises first and second service buses
configured to received financial trading service request messages "wherein
the received financial trading service request messages are routed by an
integration component configured to route the financial trading service
request messages to one of the first and second service buses."
Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 16 (App. Br. 20-21) are
substantially similar to Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 1, and
are unpersuasive for substantially the same reasons set forth with respect to
claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of independent claim 16, and dependent claims 17-20, which are
8
Appeal2014-005735
Application 13/022,420
not argued separately except with reference to Appellants' arguments with
respect to claim 16 (id. at 21-24).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claim 1-5 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
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-IN-PART
9