Ex Parte Sharma et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 8, 201612969573 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/969,573 12/15/2010 123619 7590 02/10/2016 Bryan Cave, LLP ( W ALMART) Two North Central A venue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rakesh Sharma 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. WMT-15-233-US/038 l 629 4452 EXAMINER AMIN, MUSTAFAA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/10/2016 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): PXBCIPDocketing@bryancave.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAKESH SHARMA and YULIA GROZA Appeal 2014-002541 1 Application 12/969,573 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, WILLIAM M. FINK, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-12, 26, 30, and 33-53. Claims 13- 25, 27-29, 31, and 32 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-002541 Application 12/969,573 Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for processing an Extensible Markup Language (XML) document (107). Spec. i-f 1, Fig. 1. In particular, upon receiving from a client application ( 101) a request for data from the XML document, a processor ( 102) retrieves from the XML document (107) a segment representing the requested data. The processor (102) then converts the retrieved segment into an object-based XML representation, which the processor (102) transforms into an application data object that is subsequently forwarded to the client application (101 ). Id. i-fi-1 59---62. Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 is exemplary, and reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for processing an XML document, comprising: in a processor, receiving a message from an application requesting data from the XML document; in the processor, responsive to receiving the message: retrieving, from the XML document, at least one segment representing the requested data; converting the retrieved at least one segment to an object-based XML representation; and transforming the object-based XML representation to at least one application data object; and in the processor, transmitting the at least one application data object to the application. 2 Appeal2014-002541 Application 12/969,573 Prior Art Relied Upon Bau US 2004/0216086 Al Oct. 28, 2004 Mar. 27, 2012 Kunti et al. US 8,145,608 B2 Rejections on Appeal Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections: Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-12, 26, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40-45, 47, 48, and 51- 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kunti. Claims 4, 35, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kunti and Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Claims 7, 8, 38, 39, 49, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kunti and Bau. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 10-16.2 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding Kunti teaches or suggests in response to a request received from an application, a processor converts a segment retrieved from an XML 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 21, 2013), and the Answer (mailed August 22, 2013) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 3 Appeal2014-002541 Application 12/969,573 document into an object-based XML representation, which the processor transforms into an application data object for subsequent transmission to the requesting application, as required in independent claim 1? Appellants argue Kunti does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 10-15. First, Appellants argue although Kunti discloses converting an XML file to create wrapper objects, the created objects do not teach an object- based XML representation. Rather, the wrapper object is a generic term denoting a genus, whereas the claimed object based XML representation denotes a species. App. Br. 11. According to Appellants, because Kunti's description of the created wrapper object involves parsing records to obtain java objects, Kunti teaches away from the object-based XML representations. Id. This argument is unpersuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellants' Specification is devoid of an express definition for "object-based XML representation". Ans. 5. We further note Appellants' failure to dispute the Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of the cited term, consistent with Appellants' Specification, as java objects. Id. Although Appellants allege that java objects teach away from "object-based XML representations," Appellants present no evidence to substantiate this position. App. Br. 11. In fact, Appellants' own Specification indicates that access to an XML document from a java application is accomplished by presenting the XML document in the form of java objects. Spec. i-f 11. Consequently, we adopt 4 Appeal2014-002541 Application 12/969,573 the Examiner's interpretation of "object-based XML representations" as encompassing java objects. Further, Appellants' allegation that wrapper object, as taught by Kunti, is defined in the Specification to denote a generic term is not supported by the record before us. App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 130, 143). Although the cited portions of Appellants' Specification vaguely refer to terms such as "wrapper object," "XmlObjectwrapping," and "namespaceStartWrapper," they fail to delineate a difference between "wrapper object" and "object-based XML representation." Instead, paragraph 130 appears to discuss "wrapper object" in connection with the translation or conversion of XML data into an object for use by a java application. Accordingly we agree with the Examiner's finding that Kunti's disclosure of converting records from a parsed XML document into corresponding wrapper objects teaches converting retrieved XivIL segments into object-based XML representations. Ans. 5 (citing Kunti 5:25-50). We similarly find unpersuasive Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred by relying upon Kunti' s disclosure of converting an XML record into a wrapper object, which is transformed into a server object to teach the limitations of converting a retrieved segment into an object-based XML presentation, which is then transformed into an application data object. App. Br. 11-13 (citing Kunti 8:32-39). As correctly noted by the Examiner, it is the same wrapper object (obtained from the conversion of the XML record), which is transformed into the server object. Ans. 7-8. Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellants' argument that the Examiner's mapping of 5 Appeal2014-002541 Application 12/969,573 the claim limitations to the cited portions of Kunti is incorrect. We are therefore satisfied that Kunti teaches the disputed limitations. It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejections of claims 2-12, 26, 30, and 33-53, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-12, 26, 30, and 33-53 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-12, 26, 30, and 33-53. 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). AFFIRivIED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation