Ex Parte Portier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2016

13160691 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/160,691 06/15/2011 Bertrand H. Portier
45095 7590 08/26/2016
HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
540 Broadway
4th Floor
ALBANY, NY 12207
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.
CA920100043US1 3883
EXAMINER
SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2016 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):
PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte BERTRAND H. PORTIER and SURAJ SHINDE
Appeal2015-001583
Application 13/160,691
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-001583
Application 13/160,691
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application concerns "browser technology in a data
processing system and more specifically to a business process management
engine implementation in a Web browser in the data processing system."
Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A computer-implemented process for a Web browser-
based business process management engine, the computer
implemented process comprising:
embedding a business process management engine in a
Web browser to form a Web browser-based business process
management engine,
wherein the embedding includes supporting a full business
process management lifecycle within the Web browser-based
business process management engine, including phases of
Model, Assemble, Deploy, and Manage; and
executing services using the Web browser-based business
process management engine,
wherein the executing includes executing services as
operations in a workflow that are local browser-based web
services using a Representational State Transfer (REST)
protocol, and
wherein the executing further includes:
determining whether services of another Web browser-
based business process management engine are used;
communicating directly with the another Web browser-
based business process management engine if the determining
indicates the services of the another Web browser-based
business process management engines are used; and
communicating with server-based services using the Web
browser-based business process management engine if the
determining indicates the services of the other Web browser-
based business process management engines are not used.
2
Appeal2015-001583
Application 13/160,691
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Burke et al. (US 6,789,252 Bl; Sept. 7, 2004)
("Burke"), Bouillet et al. (US 2010/0095269 Al; Apr. 15, 2010)
("Bouillet"), and Dan et al. (US 2006/0287967 Al; Dec. 21, 2006) ("Dan").
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue "the combination of Burke, Bouillet, and Dan fails
to teach or suggest ... the claimed process of' ... determining whether
services of another Web browser-based business process management
engine are used ... , ' and subsequently performing the claimed processes
' [communicating] ... if the determining indicates ... ' the services of other
Web browser-based business process management engines are/are not used."
App. Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellants contend the Examiner "overlook[ed]
the details of the claim language, namely, the explicitly recited decision
process of, 'communicating ... if the determining indicates the services of
the other Web browser-based business process management engines are (or
are not) used ... "' Id. at 8.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. With respect to
the disputed limitations, the Examiner found Burke discloses "the ability to
distribute functionality of [a] Web server computer over a different number
of suitable computers." Final Act. 4 (citing Burke 29:65-30:3, 34:31-37,
41--47). Based on this finding, the Examiner concluded "[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to
communicate with other Web browser-based engines and services in a
3
Appeal2015-001583
Application 13/160,691
distributed environment as disclosed in Burke in order to allow network
scalability and redundancy, thereby distributing processing ability and
preventing malfunction due to hardware failure." Id. at 4--5.
Even assuming Burke discloses distributing web server functionality
over different computers as found by the Examiner, this finding does not
provide adequate support for the Examiner's obviousness rejection. The
disputed limitations require more than simply distributing web server
functionality. The disputed limitations recite communicating with either a
Web browser-based business process management engine or server-based
services depending on whether the method uses the services of "another
Web browser-based business process management engine." See claim 1.
The Examiner has not adequately explained why distributing web server
functionality over different computers teaches or suggests these limitations.
Similarly, the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious "to
communicate with other Web browser-based engines and services in a
distributed environment" does not address the specific requirements of the
disputed limitations. The conclusion does not address whether it would have
been obvious to determine whether the method uses "another Web browser-
based business process management engine." Nor does this conclusion
address whether it would have been obvious, based on this determination, to
communicate with either a Web browser-based business process
management engine or server-based services.
In short, the Examiner's findings and conclusions do not adequately
address the limitations at issue. Therefore, based on this record, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent
claims. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
4
Appeal2015-001583
Application 13/160,691
claims 8 and 15 and their respective dependent claims, as the Examiner's
rejections of the claims suffer from similar deficiencies.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-8,
10-15, and 17-20.
REVERSED
5