10526587 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2014)

Ex Parte Sano

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 18, 2014

10526587 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2014)

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. 10/526,587 02/28/2005 Akira Sano JP920020141US1 3809 48916 7590 02/18/2014 Greg Goshorn, P.C. 9600 Escarpment Suite 745-9 AUSTIN, TX 78749 EXAMINER BENOIT, ESTHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2453 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AKIRA SANO ____________ Appeal 2011-008806 Application 10/526,587 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008806 Application 10/526,587 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 8 and 21-30 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system for using web services via a network (Spec. 1:3-5). Claim 8, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 8. A method of selecting a web service comprising: transmitting a search request for a service from a service requestor to a management site that searches for software services provided via a network; obtaining by the search requestor a service search result from the management site including information for determining quality of services corresponding to a plurality of provider sites, wherein the quality of service information is provided by the provider sites and the accumulated by the management sites; selecting by the service requestor at least one software service based on the obtained result; and transmitting a request to execute the selected service to the service provider. Appeal 2011-008806 Application 10/526,587 3 THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 8 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kreger (Web Services Conceptual Architecture (WSCA 1.0), IBM Software Group, May, 2001). FINDINGS OF FACT We find the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1. ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 8 is improper because the prior art fails to show the claim limitation that “the quality of service information is provided by the provider sites” (Br. 12). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is shown by Kreger at page 7, paragraph 1; page 12, paragraph 2; and page 21, paragraphs 3-5 (Ans. 4, 7). We agree with the Appellants. The argued claim limitation requires that “the quality of service information is provided by the provider sites”. Thus, the claim limitation requires specifically that the “quality of service information” is provided by the “provider sites” and Kreger at the above cited citations does not disclose this. The above cited portions of Kreger at pages 7 and 12 do make mention of a “service description” and “service 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2011-008806 Application 10/526,587 4 publication” respectively, but this is not the claimed “quality of service information” from the “provider sites” as claimed. Kreger at page 21 does disclose that “service requestors search for a Web service based on how they communicate or qualities of serviced advertised” but the mere reference to the “qualities of serviced” advertised does not specifically disclose that information was provided by the provider sites as required by the claim. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 8 and its dependent claims is not sustained. Independent claims 24 and 27 contain a similar limitation to that addressed above and the rejection of these claims, and their dependent claims, is not sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 21-30 is reversed. REVERSED Vsh