Ex Parte Robb et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 28, 201110127726 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4 AND INTERFERENCES 5 ___________ 6 7 Ex parte TERENCE ALAN ROBB, JAMES LOUIS STANDLEE, 8 ANNE ELIZABETH BEVIS, AMANDA JO WILLIAMS, 9 MICHAEL NASH HAASE, BARBARA L. HALL, 10 RALPH SAMUEL HOEFELMEYER, and THERESA EILCCN PHILLIPS 11 ___________ 12 13 Appeal 2010-004472 14 Application 10/127,726 15 Technology Center 3600 16 ___________ 17 18 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 19 JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. 20 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 21 DECISION ON APPEAL 22 Appeal 2010-004472 Application 10/127,726 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed August 25, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 20, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 27, 2009). Terence Alan Robb, James Louis Standlee, Anne Elizabeth Bevis, 2 Amanda Jo Williams, Michael Nash Haase, Barbara L. Hall, Ralph Samuel 3 Hoefelmeyer, and Theresa Eilccn Phillips (Appellants) seek review under 4 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a final rejection of claims 10-39 and 61-67, the 5 only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over 6 the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 7 The Appellants invented an Application Infrastructure Platform to 8 supply applications and services to Application Service Providers 9 (Specification ¶ 08). 10 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 11 exemplary claim 10, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 12 paragraphing added]. 13 10. A system for automatically providing application services, 14 the system comprising: 15 [1] a plurality of application service provider systems 16 providing application services to customer entities for use 17 in end user devices; and 18 [2] a common services environment 19 including hardware and software configured 20 to allow said end user devices to access and utilize 21 said application services of said plurality of 22 application service provider systems, and 23 Appeal 2010-004472 Application 10/127,726 3 said common services environment further including 1 management systems to provide 2 integrated application, 3 back-office, and 4 management services 5 to said application service provider systems 6 for use in managing and supporting access 7 by said end user devices 8 to said application services 9 of said plurality of application service 10 provider systems. 11 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 12 Tormasov US 2002/0143906 A1 Oct. 3, 2002 Campbell US 6,920,615 B1 Jul. 19, 2005 Claims 10-39 and 61-67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 13 unpatentable over Tormasov and Campbell. 14 15 ISSUES 16 The issue of obviousness turns on whether Tormasov describes its 17 virtual environment as an alternative to ASP’s, or as a support mechanism 18 for multiple ASP’s. 19 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 20 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 21 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 22 Facts Related to the Prior Art 23 Appeal 2010-004472 Application 10/127,726 4 Tormasov 1 01. Tormasov is directed to a computer hosting service where 2 computer clusters serving as a platform are configured 3 automatically and have a system of virtual environments that are 4 integrated with a distributed file system as a platform for 5 providing hosting services. Tormasov ¶ 0002 and 22. 6 02. A set of virtual environments is launched and several computers 7 are combined with a distributed file system and a control center 8 into a sharable cluster. End users are linked to their virtual 9 environments via the Internet. Tormasov ¶ 0024. 10 03. Application Service Providers (ASP) represent another class of 11 hosting services that are in demand. Usually, Application Service 12 Providers provide shared access to a shared application such as a 13 database, which is installed and administered by the provider's 14 system engineer. Tormasov identifies a problem to be solved with 15 ASP’s as user access being restricted to the database alone. Access 16 to office applications, for example, is practically impossible as 17 their installation implies that there is only one user. Security of 18 data access is yet another problem. Tormasov ¶ 0016. 19 Campbell 20 04. Campbell is directed to a service enablement gateway with a 21 service portal. Campbell 1:18-20. 22 05. Campbell’s portal server has an application server, a database, 23 and a web server. The application server supports billing, 24 Appeal 2010-004472 Application 10/127,726 5 authentication, profile maintenance, remote logging portion, and 1 authorized third party maintenance. Campbell 1:18-20. 2 ANALYSIS 3 We are unpersuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the art fails to 4 show limitation [1] was predictable. Appeal Br. 9-12. The Appellants 5 contend that the art also teaches away from the use of ASP’s. Id. The 6 Examiner found that Tormasov describes a computer hosting service where 7 computer clusters serve as a platform configured automatically having a 8 system of virtual environments that are integrated with a distributed file 9 system as a platform for providing hosting services. Ans. 4-5. See FF 01. 10 This is in response to Tormasov’s recognition of a need for such 11 environments to support ASP’s. FF 03. Thus, contrary to the Appellants’ 12 contention that Tormasov describes its virtual environment as an alternative 13 to ASP’s, instead Tormasov describes its virtual environment as a support 14 mechanism for multiple ASP’s. 15 We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner failed to present a prima 16 facie case as to separately argued claims 13, 22, 23, and 25. Appeal Br. 14. 17 The Examiner made no citations to support the findings as to these claims, 18 and we find no support in the applied art for the Examiner’s findings. The 19 Examiner took notice of the notoriety of product catalogs for claim 12 and 20 the Appellants did not challenge this notoriety. 21 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 22 The rejection of claims 10-12, 14-21, 24, 26-39 and 61-67 under 35 23 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tormasov and Campbell is proper. 24 Appeal 2010-004472 Application 10/127,726 6 The rejection of claims 13, 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 1 unpatentable over Tormasov and Campbell is improper. 2 DECISION 3 To summarize, our decision is as follows. 4 The rejection of claims 10-12, 14-21, 24, 26-39 and 61-67 under 35 5 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tormasov and Campbell is 6 sustained. 7 The rejection of claims 13, 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 8 unpatentable over Tormasov and Campbell is not sustained. 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 10 appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 11 § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 12 13 AFFIRMED-IN-PART 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 mev 21 22 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation