Ex Parte Tatsubori

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2014

12060429 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte MICHIAKI TATSUBORI
____________________

Appeal 2011-011546
Application 12/060,429
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and LYNNE H.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM
Appeal 2011-011546
Application 12/060,429

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method for providing a
Web service in which a proxy apparatus accesses a Web
application server in response to a request from a Web service
client, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a computing device, an HTTP request to
the Web application server in response to a request from the
Web service client;
extracting, by said computing device, user session
information from an entity header and an entity body in an
HTTP response returned from said Web application server, said
user session information comprising:
Set-Cookie header information;
a uniform resource indicator (URI) of an action
attribute value; and
at least one pair of "name" and "value" attribute
values of input controls;
embedding, by said computing device, into a response to
the Web service client, said user session information; and
embedding, by said computing device, the user session
information contained in a request from the Web service client
into an entity header and an entity body as part of application
data in an HTTP request and transmitting the HTTP request to
the Web application server.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kojima (US 2004/0162873 A1; pub. Aug. 19, 2004).
Claims 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kojima and Boubez (US 2005/0086197 A1; Apr. 21,
2005).
Appeal 2011-011546
Application 12/060,429

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-13 as anticipated by Kojima
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 5, and 11-13, and claims 8-10 as separate
groups. App. Br. 10-16. We select claims 1 and 8 as representative claims
of each group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claims 2, 3, 5, and 11-13 stand
or fall with claim 1. Claims 9 and 10 stand or fall with claim 8.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-13
The Examiner found that Kojima discloses a method of providing a
Web service, as claimed, including extracting user session information from
an entity header and entity body in an HTTP response returned from a web
application server and embedding user session information in a response to
the Web service client as a SOAP response. Ans. 4-5 (citing Kojima, paras.
[0049-0062, 0076-0078, 0083]; figs. 3, 4, 8); Ans. 8-14 (citing Kojima,
paras. [0052, 0059, 0074, 0075, 0077, 0078, 0082, 0083]; figs. 5, 6, 8).
Appellant argues that Kojima does not extract data from an HTTP
response returned from the Web application server and embed that data into
a response to the Web service client, because Kojima discloses that the data
is extracted from the HTTP response and placed in an input/output log data
502 and then embedded in a SOAP response message. App. Br. 11 (citing
para. [0078]). Appellant also argues that the URL, Set Cookie, and a pair of
name and value attribute values are merely data within the input/output log
data. App. Br. 12. These arguments are not persuasive of error in the
Examiner’s findings as set forth in the Answer that Kojima extracts user
session information from an HTTP response as claimed. See App. Br. 11.
The fact that Kojima records this user session information in an input/output
log data table before being embedded into a SOAP response does not alter
Appeal 2011-011546
Application 12/060,429

4
the fact that Kojima extracts the relevant data from an HTTP response and
embeds it into a response to the Web service client as claimed. Claim 1
recites a method “comprising” and therefore covers prior art methods that
disclose the claimed steps and additional steps. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant also argues that Kojima does not embed all user session
information into a response to the Web service client as claimed. Reply Br.
3-10. In particular, Appellant argues that data from the HTTP response
message is included in the response, not information extracted from the
response of the Web Application Server stored in the input/output log date
of Figure 8. Reply Br. 10. These arguments are not persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s findings that Kojima discloses that user session information
is extracted from an HTTP response to include a URI, cookie, and name and
value attributes and embedded into an HTTP request and a SOAP request.
See Ans. 8-14. The Examiner has made findings that Kojima extracts the
claimed user session information from an HTTP response and uses that
information to create SOAP and HTTP requests. Appellant’s arguments,
which largely repeat claim limitations and recite portions of the Examiner’s
findings and Kojima’s disclosures verbatim do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning as set forth in the Answer. We sustain
the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 11-13.
Claims 8-10
Appellant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 8 largely
repeat arguments made regarding claim 1. Cf., App. Br. 10-16 and App. Br.
16-21. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra
for claim 1. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 8-10.
Appeal 2011-011546
Application 12/060,429

5
Claims 4, 6 and 7 as unpatentable over Kojima and Boubez
Appellant does not present arguments regarding the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4, 6, and 7 as being unpatentable over Kojima and
Boubez. See App. Br. 2, 7-22. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
rejection of those claims.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-13.
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

tkl