Ex Parte Shen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2007

09825495 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BO SHEN
____________

Appeal 2007-1117
Application 09/825,495
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 30, 2007
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JOHN A.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1 to 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant has invented a network and method for dynamically and
intelligently routing a user’s requests for services via an ingress server to
Appeal 2007-1117
Application 09/825,495

one of at least two application service provider servers that provide two
different types of application service (Figure 1; Specification 2 and 22).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A network configured to dynamically and intelligently route
requests for services provided by service provider servers, comprising:
a computing device utilizing an Internet provided (ISP) to
communicate over the network;
an association of at least two application service provider servers
coupled with said network, said association comprising:
a first application service provider for providing a first type of
application service; and
a second application service provider for providing a second type of
application service, wherein said first type of application service is different
than said second type of application service;
an ingress server configured to receive a request for an application
service from the computing device over an established network connection;
service routing server utilizing a predetermined application criteria to
intelligently select one of said at least two application service provider
servers based on said application request received from said computing
device, and intelligently routing the computing device application service
request over the network to the selected application service provider server
to perform the requested application service; and
an application service provider server register configured to maintain
current application service provider server information for at least one of
2
Appeal 2007-1117
Application 09/825,495

said at least two application service provider servers providing said
application services.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Duursma US 6,643,690 B2 Nov. 4, 2003
(filed Feb. 18, 1999)
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based
upon the teachings of Duursma.
Appellant contends that Duursma does not describe “the feature of a
service routing server utilizing a predetermined application criteria to
intelligently select one of the at least two application service provider
servers based on the application request received from the computing device,
and intelligently routing the computing device application service request
over the network to the selected application service provider server to
perform the requested application service” (Br. 12). Appellant also contends
that Duursma does not teach “developing a register for said application
service provider, said register qualifying said application servers based on
the parameters of the services provided by the application service providers”
(Br. 16).
We hereby sustain the rejection of record.
ISSUES
Does Duursma describe the feature of intelligently selecting an
application service provider server based on a user’s service request, and
intelligently routing the service request to the selected application service
provider server to perform the request?
3
Appeal 2007-1117
Application 09/825,495

Does Duursma describe a register that qualifies the application servers
based on the parameters of the services provided by the application service
providers?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant discloses a network (Figure 1) that is configured to route a
request for service by client 102 via an ingress server 104 to at least two
application service provider servers (e.g., 114 and 122) that provide two
different types of service. Each of the service routing servers (e.g., 110 and
112) uses a predetermined application criteria to intelligently select one of
the at least two application service provider servers based on the user’s
request, and intelligently routes the request to the selected application
service provider server to perform the requested application service.
Appellant provides a register that qualifies the application servers based on
the parameters of the services provided by the application service providers.
Duursma describes a network (Figure 3B) that is configured to route a
request for service by client 20 via an ingress server 32 to at least two
application service provider servers 34 and 36 (col. 8, ll. 42 to 57). A
service routing server 30 uses a predetermined application criteria (e.g.,
load-balancing and application program availability) to intelligently select
one of the at least two application service provider servers based on the
user’s request, and intelligently routes the request to the selected application
service provider server to perform the requested application service using
either the second application program in application service provider server
34 or the third application program in application service provider server 36
(col. 8, ll. 58 to 67).
4
Appeal 2007-1117
Application 09/825,495

An application database 48 in the service routing server 30 in
Duursma includes a list of application servers, and each server in the list has
an associated set of applications (col. 10, ll. 56 to 58). Each application is
associated with “application-related information that can include the
application name, a list of servers, and client users that are authorized to use
that application” (col. 10, ll. 58 to 61). The application database 48 can be
located at any of the other servers in the network disclosed by Duursma (col.
10, ll. 41 to 50; col 15, ll. 5 to 9). Thus, Duursma describes a storage
means/register that pre-qualifies users based upon the parameters of the
services offered by the application servers (col. 11, ll. 12 to 31).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
During ex parte examination of an application, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701, (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The claims on
appeal are not confined to embodiments specifically described in the
specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323, 75 USPQ2d
1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
ANALYSIS
As indicated supra, Duursma does describe the claimed feature of
intelligently selecting an application service provider server based on a
5
Appeal 2007-1117
Application 09/825,495

user’s service request, and intelligently routing the service request to the
selected application service provider server to perform the request. Nothing
in the claims on appeal requires that the criteria used by Duursma for
making the intelligent selection must be the same criteria set forth in the
specification disclosed by Appellant.
With respect to the claimed register, the application database 48 in
Duursma performs the claimed function. The parameters set forth in the
specification are not in the claims on appeal, and we will not import them
into the claims (Reply Br. 5).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Anticipation has been established by the Examiner because Duursma
intelligently selects and routes a user’s request to an application service
provider server, and Duursma describes a database that operates like the
claimed register.
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
6
Appeal 2007-1117
Application 09/825,495

AFFIRMED

ELD

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins CO 80527-2400
7