Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

11640053 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2016)

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.
11/640,053 12/15/2006 Jacob Taylor 1301-005U 5623
7590 12/01/201629973
CRGO LAW
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
BELANI, KISHIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACOB TAYLOR, CLINTON ORAM, and JOHN ROBERTS
Appeal 2015-006190
Application 11/640,053
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7—14. Claims 3, 6, and 15—35 were
cancelled, and claims 36—53 were withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a customer relationship management (CRM)
system comprising a computing system, database, and different modules that
access the database to retrieve data therefrom. The system uses a base class,
known as “SugarBean,” with methods for building list queries, as well as
Appeal 2015-006190
Application 11/640,053
saving and retrieving items. At least one SugarBean subclass exists for each
module to provide module-specific details. See generally Spec. 5—6, 10;
Fig. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A customer relationship management (CRM) system,
comprising:
a computing system comprising at least one computer with
memory and at least one processor;
a database coupled to the computing system;
multiple different modules of a CRM application
executing in the computing system that access the database to
retrieve data therefrom in response to requests from clients
communicatively coupled to the host computing system over a
computer communications network and to provide to the clients
a user interface containing information relating to the retrieved
data; and
a base class stored in memory of the computing system,
the base class comprising computer usable program code in a
data structure defining at least three methods, the methods
comprising a method programmed to build list queries, a method
programmed to save individual data items and a method
programmed to retrieve individual data items, wherein each of
the different modules further comprises an instance of a subclass
of the base class.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer (US 8,150,728 Bl; Apr. 3, 2012) and Ahad (US
7,024,656 Bl; Apr. 4, 2006). Ans. 2-5.1
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed January 12,
2015 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 3, 2015
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 3, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2015-006190
Application 11/640,053
The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer, Ahad, and Varasano (US 2005/0165829 Al; July
28, 2005). Ans. 5-6.
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer, Ahad, and Denis (US 2008/0215727 Al; Sept. 4,
2008). Ans. 6-7.
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer, Ahad, Denis, and Kinsley (US 2007/0026942 Al
Feb. 1, 2007). Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer, Ahad, and Ronnewinkel (US 2005/0228790 Al;
Oct. 13, 2005). Ans. 9-10.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bayer, Ahad, and Clark (US 2006/0112123 Al; May
25,2006). Ans. 10-11.
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer, Ahad, and Matthews (US 2003/0050986 Al; Mar.
13, 2003). Ans. 12.
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer, Ahad, and Wolf (US 2006/0015533 Al; Jan. 19,
2006). Ans. 12-13.
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer, Ahad, and Smirnov (US 2003/0097383 Al; May
22, 2003). Ans. 14.
3
Appeal 2015-006190
Application 11/640,053
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bayer, Ahad, and Sanches (US 2003/0018510 Al; Jan.
23,2003). Ans. 15.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER BAYER AND AHAD
The Examiner finds that Bayer’s CRM system has a computing
system, a database coupled thereto, and different CRM application modules
that perform the recited functions. Ans. 2—3. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Bayer lacks the recited base class, where each module
comprises an instance of a subclass of the base class, the Examiner cites
Ahad’s persistent agent functionality as teaching this feature in concluding
that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3—5.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Ahad’s
“PersistentAgent” interface in connection with the recited base class
limitation is misplaced. App. Br. 3—10; Reply Br. 2—10. According to
Appellants, Ahad’s PersistentAgent interface is not a class, but an interface
from which a class may be defined. App. Br. 5—6. Appellants add that, not
only does this interface lack the three recited methods defined by the base
class, Ahad does not disclose an instance of a subclass of the base class in
each CRM application module as claimed. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 8—10.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Bayer and Ahad collectively would have taught or suggested a base
class defining the three recited methods, where each module comprises an
instance of a subclass of the base class?
4
Appeal 2015-006190
Application 11/640,053
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that Appellants’ summary of the claimed subject
matter on pages 2 and 3 of the Appeal Brief is inconsistent with the language
of claim 1 in this appeal. Compare App. Br. 2 (referring to an apparatus for
updating deployment of a software application having different modules,
where the apparatus includes, among other things, a data gathering unit and
aggregation computer) with App. Br. 11 (Claims App. Claim 1) (reciting a
CRM system lacking those specific elements). Although we interpret
claim 1 in light of the Specification, Appellants’ failure to identify the
limitations of claim 1 at issue in this appeal, let alone the correct citations
from the Specification corresponding to those limitations, makes our task of
interpreting claim 1 all the more difficult.
Turning to the rejection, we first note that the Examiner’s reliance on
the primary reference to Bayer—including its teachings regarding multiple
different CRM application modules—is undisputed. Nor do Appellants
dispute the cited references’ combinability. Rather, as noted above, this
dispute turns solely on the Examiner’s reliance on Ahad for teaching the
recited base class limitation.
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, a stored base class with code
defining at least three methods that are not only programmed to build list
queries, but also save and retrieve individual data items. Claim 1 also
requires that each CRM module comprises an instance of a subclass of the
base class.
In the rejection, the Examiner refers to Ahad’s “persistent agent”
functionality in connection with the base class limitation. Ans. 4. Ahad’s
5
Appeal 2015-006190
Application 11/640,053
system ensures object persistence so that an object’s lifetime exceeds that of
the process that creates or accesses the object—a useful property for those
objects instantiated in one process that carry information needed by other
processes. Ahad, col. 1,11. 23—30. To this end, persistent agents, namely
objects that map programming language constructs to a database model, are
created for every class whose instances need to persist. Ahad, col. 2,1. 65 —
col. 3,1. 8.
In one embodiment, a persistent agent is an instance of a class that
implements a persistent agent interface of an application programming
interface (API) for applications to store and retrieve objects persistently.
Ahad, col. 3,11. 9—13. In one aspect, objects are stored persistently in a
persistent object store in a “session” created via a PersistentObjectStore
interface in Ahad’s Table 1. Ahad, col. 7,1. 57 — col. 8,1. 18. Persistent
agents are then created via the persistent object store session
(“POSSession”) interface in Ahad’s Table 2. Ahad, col. 8,1. 19—54. Upon
instantiation, a persistent agent for a particular class can then be used to
store and retrieve objects persistently that belong to that class via the
PersistentAgent interface in Ahad’s Table 3. Ahad, col. 9,1. 39 — col. 10,1.
67. To that end, various methods associated with the PersistentAgent
interface are invoked, including “store(),” “retrieve(),” and
“getPrimaryKeyFieldsO,” the latter of which returns a list of fields in the
object constituting a primary key. Ahad, col. 10,11. 13—59.
In the rejection, the Examiner finds Ahad instantiates a persistent
agent class that defines the three recited methods, including building queries
by first invoking the above-noted getPrimaryKeyFieldsO method before
issuing a structured query language (SQL) query. Ans. 4. Our emphasis
6
Appeal 2015-006190
Application 11/640,053
underscores that it is the instantiated persistent agent class that the Examiner
relies upon for teaching the recited base class—not the PersistentAgent
interface in Ahad’s Table 3 as Appellants contend. App. Br. 5—6; Reply Br.
5. Accord Ans. 17 (“Nowhere in the Final Office Action has the examiner
mapped the claimed base class to the ‘persistent agent’ interface shown in
Table 3.”).
Nevertheless, Appellants acknowledge that this interface is
implemented by a corresponding PersistentAgent class', thus, it is undisputed
that such a class exists. See App. Br. 8 (agreeing with the Examiner that
Ahad’s persistent agent interface in Table 3 is implemented by a class); see
also Reply Br. 5 (noting that Ahad’s “createPersonalAgent()” method is
used to create an instance of a PersistentAgent class that implements the
PersistentAgent interface); Reply Br. 6 (acknowledging that Ahad’s
PersistentAgent interface is implemented by the corresponding
PersistentAgent class).
To be sure, Ahad is short on specifics regarding the particulars of this
class, let alone that it is a base class divided into subclasses as Appellants
indicate (Reply Br. 5, 8). But we nevertheless see no reason why a
persistent agent base class could not be so divided, particularly in light of the
known subclass-derivation techniques noted by the Examiner in, for
example, Ahad’s column 2, lines 26 to 29. See Ans. 4, 18. Although this
passage indicates that classes can be derived from a persistent object base
class—not a persistent agent base class—we nonetheless see no reason why
such a teaching could not be applied to a persistent agent base class to derive
subclasses therefrom—a predictable result. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). That Ahad discusses known class-
7
Appeal 2015-006190
Application 11/640,053
inheritance techniques in connection with languages such as JAVA in
column 2, lines 29 to 35 only bolsters the notion that instantiating subclasses
of a persistent agent base class as the Examiner proposes would have been at
least an obvious variation.2
We also see no error in the Examiner’s findings that Ahad at least
suggests that the persistent agent base class defines at least three methods
via its associated interface, namely (1) storing objects; (2) retrieving objects;
and (3) building list queries via the “store()” “retrieve(),” and
“getPrimaryKeyFields()” methods, respectively. Ahad, col. 10,11. 13—59.
Notably, the latter method returns a list of fields in the object constituting a
primary key (Ahad, col. 10,11. 57—59) which, as the Examiner explains, is
invoked before issuing an SQL query. Ans. 4. Despite Appellants’
arguments to the contrary (Reply Br. 8—9),3 Appellants do not persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s findings in this regard.
2 Although the Examiner also refers to the Sanches reference as additional
evidence of base-class subclasses (Ans. 4)—a reference that was cited solely
to reject claim 13 (Ans. 15)—we decline to consider that extraneous
reference here, for it was not relied upon to reject claim 1. See In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a reference is relied on to
support a rejection, whether or not in a ‘minor capacity,’ there would appear
to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of
the rejection.”).
3 Although Appellants appear to admit that Ahad’s “retrieve() method does
‘build list queries’” on page 9 of the Reply Brief (emphasis added), this
somewhat puzzling statement may be a typographical error when read in
context. In any event, Appellants’ arguments regarding the alleged
shortcomings of Ahad’s retrieve method are not germane to the Examiner’s
reliance on Ahad’s “getPrimaryKeyFields()” method for teaching building
list queries in the rejection. See Ans. 4.
8
Appeal 2015-006190
Application 11/640,053
Lastly, we find unavailing Appellants’ contentions regarding Ahad’s
alleged shortcomings pertaining to instantiating a subclass of the base class
in each CRM application module as claimed. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 8—
10. Notably, the Examiner’s rejection is not based on Ahad alone, but rather
the collective teachings of Bayer and Ahad—the former’s teachings
regarding multiple different CRM application modules being undisputed as
noted previously. In short, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s finding that instantiating a subclass of a persistent agent base
class, such as that in Ahad, in each module of Bayer would have been at
least an obvious variation. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments regarding
Ahad’s individual shortcomings in this regard do not show nonobviousness
where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective
teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4,
5, and 7—14. Ans. 5—15. Because Appellants do not contest these rejections
separately, we summarily sustain those rejections. See MPEP § 1205.02 (“If
a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the
appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner
subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”).
9
Appeal 2015-006190
Application 11/640,053
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7—14 under
§103.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7—14 is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED
10