Ex Parte Vera

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 26, 2011

11244946 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PEDRO SANCHEZ VERA
____________

Appeal 2009-009725
Application 11/244,946
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAY P. LUCAS and DEBRA K.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-009725
Application 11/244,946

2

Representative Claim
1. A system for merging manual parameters with predefined
parameters in an Information Management System (IMS), the system
comprising:

an Information Management System (IMS) configured to manage one of a
hierarchical database and a transaction management system;

a Time Sharing Options (TSO) Single Point of Control (SPOC) module for
managing a plurality of IMSs by way of manually entered commands
on a command line to control the plurality of IMSs from a single
console;

a parse module configured to receive a command string having multiple
nested manual parameters and configured to identify manual
parameters within the command string;

a build module configured to generate a parameter tree having manual
parameter nodes, each manual parameter node representing one
manual parameter, the parameter tree further comprising predefined
parameter nodes, each predefined parameter node representing one
predefined parameter,

a search module configured to compare manual parameter nodes to
predefined parameter nodes to identify parameter nodes having a
matching parameter context, a matching parameter context comprising
a context wherein a manual parameter node matches a predefined
parameter node on the same parameter nesting level; and

a command module configured to generate a command string comprising at
least one manual parameter from a manual parameter node having a
matching parameter context.

Appeal 2009-009725
Application 11/244,946

3

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hatch (US 6,263,376 B1) and Lemoine (US
2006/0005122 A1).
Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hatch, Lemoine, and Calahan (US 2004/0172599 A1).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The allocation of burdens requires that the USPTO produce the factual
basis for its rejection of an application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967)). The one who bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability is the Examiner. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (the Examiner retains the burden to
show invalidity).

ANALYSIS
The statement of the rejection applied against representative claim 1
(Ans. 3-4) contends that the entire subject matter of the claim is taught by
about 9 lines of the text of Hatch and one paragraph of text in Lemoine.
We agree with Appellant, as set forth in the Appeal Brief, that the
rejection fails to set forth a case of prima facie obviousness.

Appeal 2009-009725
Application 11/244,946

4
As an example, claim 1 recites modules configured to receive a
command string having multiple nested manual parameters, to generate a
parameter tree having manual parameter nodes and predefined parameter
nodes, and to compare manual parameter nodes to predefined parameter
nodes to identify parameter nodes having a matching parameter context. In
response to the argument that the references do not teach or suggest the
“manual” and “predefined” parameter nodes (much less the claimed
operations with respect to the parameters and nodes), the Examiner submits
that paragraph [0015] of Lemoine teaches matching a first plurality of query
nodes to a second plurality of query nodes. Ans. 8. According to the
Examiner, the matching of nodes in Lemoine “would have been obviously
analogous to the manual and predefined parameters since each query node is
in fact a container for a symbol (parameter) from the XPath.” Id. The
Examiner further contends that “the tree based matching structure of
Lemoine combined with the matching process of Hatch render the limitation
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. The Examiner’s
observations are not sufficient to remedy the apparent deficiencies in the
references, and are not helpful in demonstrating prima facie obviousness of
the claimed subject matter.
Since each of independent claims 9 and 17 recites similar limitations
to those of claim 1 but are rejected on the same basis, we cannot sustain the
rejection of any claim on appeal.

Appeal 2009-009725
Application 11/244,946

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

pgc