Ex Parte Sun et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201310426395 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WEIYUN SUN and KENNETH CHARLES DUISENBERG ____________________ Appeal 2011-001809 Application 10/426,395 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001809 Application 10/426,395 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 26-40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates to handling messages communicated between components in a digital system. Abstract. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 26, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 26 An apparatus for processing one or more component- generated messages communicated between components in a digital system comprising: a processor for executing instructions; and a computer-readable medium with the instructions that the processor executes stored on the computer-readable medium, wherein the processor executes the instructions that implement: a parser configured to separate a category identifier and a command identifier from a component-generated message; and a message handler configured to initiate an application specific command handler; a data structure, accessible by the message handler, comprising: at least one list of one or more command elements, wherein the command elements within each list correspond to commands which are members of a same category, and an array of one or more category elements each corresponding to a category identifier and including a reference to a command Appeal 2011-001809 Application 10/426,395 3 element list, wherein the message handler uses the category identifier to locate at least one category element and uses the command identifier to identify a command element in the list referenced by the identified category element. References Tuttle US 2006/0031283 A1 Feb. 9, 2006 Cheng US 7,127,722 B2 Oct. 24, 2006 Rejections Claims 26-30, 32-36, and 38-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tuttle. Claims 31 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tuttle and Cheng. ISSUE Appellants argue Tuttle does not teach “a parser configured to separate a category identifier and a command identifier from a component- generated message,” as recited in claim 26. App. Br. 11 (emphasis in original). Specifically, Appellants assert the Examiner’s interpretation of Tuttle is too broad and Tuttle “fails to mention ‘separate a command function,’ as claimed.” App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis in original). In the Reply Brief, Appellants raise two new arguments regarding claim 26. Reply 2-3. Specifically, Appellants argue Tuttle does not teach “the command elements within each list corresponding to commands which are members of the same category,” the message handler, “or an application specific command handler,” as recited in claim 26. Reply 2. None of these limitations were argued in the Appeal Brief. Absent good cause, arguments Appeal 2011-001809 Application 10/426,395 4 raised in a Reply Brief that could have been raised in an Appeal Brief need not be considered and are treated as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii); See Ex parte Borden, 93 U.S.P.Q.2d 1473, 1743-74 (BPAI 2010) (“informative”). Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Tuttle discloses “a parser configured to separate a category identifier and a command identifier from a component-generated message,” as recited in claim 26? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contention. The Examiner points out Appellants’ argument that Tuttle does not “separate a command function” is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds Tuttle’s extraction of an object identifier from a message, disclosed in paragraph [0109], meets the limitation of “a parser configured to separate . . . a command identifier from a component-generated message,” as recited in claim 26. Ans. 7. The Examiner also finds Tuttle discloses extracting a category identifier from a message in paragraph [0114]. Ans. 7. The Examiner explains the claim language does not recite how or when the category and command identifiers are separated from the message and therefore, the cited paragraphs of Tuttle disclose the recited claim language. Ans. 7. Specifically, the Examiner points to paragraph [0114] of Tuttle, which states “specify[ing] the category in the object ID for the message” and “generat[ing] an integer between 1 and N, and this integer is the message category.” Ans. 7; Tuttle ¶ [0114]. Appeal 2011-001809 Application 10/426,395 5 Appellants respond by arguing Tuttle does not teach separating a category identifier in paragraph [0114], but merely “teaches that that [sic] all objects from the same input source belong to the same category, the object ID can be used to determine the category or partitioning messages into categories based on the object ID or some other value.” Reply 3. Appellants do not address the particular portion of paragraph [0114] referenced by the Examiner, which explains that a category may be assigned as an integer between 1 and N. See Tuttle ¶ [0114]. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that Tuttle discloses separating a category ID from a message. We find Appellants’ arguments contending Tuttle does not disclose “a parser configured to separate a category identifier and a command identifier from a component-generated message” unpersuasive. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 as anticipated by Tuttle. Appellants provide no separate substantive arguments for claims 27-30, 32-36, and 38-40 and we thus sustain the anticipation rejection of these claims as well. Appellants argue Cheng does not cure the deficiencies of Tuttle and thus claims 31 and 37 are not obvious in view of the combination of Tuttle and Cheng. We find no deficiency in Tuttle based on Appellants’ arguments and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 37 as being obvious in view of Tuttle and Cheng. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26-40 is affirmed. Appeal 2011-001809 Application 10/426,395 6 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation