Ex Parte Walter et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 201412277202 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 12/277,202 11/24/2008 Wolfgang Walter 006741.P167 5583 45062 7590 04/30/2014 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER MAUNG, ZARNI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WOLFGANG WALTER, IAIN MORRISON, GREGOR RIEKEN, MORITZ THOMAS, and STEPHAN TOEBBEN ____________________ Appeal 2011-010898 Application 12/277,202 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010898 Application 12/277,202 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Wolfgang Walter et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The Claimed Subject Matter Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for data access comprising: processing a first request for data according to a first protocol at a frontend system in a demilitarized zone, the frontend system providing a user interface for a backend system; and sending a second request for the data according to a second protocol to the backend system to service the second request. Evidence The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Rose Combar US 2006/0026300 A1 US 7,058,600 B1 Feb. 2, 2006 Jun. 6, 2006 Rejection Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rose and Combar. Appeal 2011-010898 Application 12/277,202 3 OPINION Appellants argue claims 1-10 and 12-19 together, and present a separate argument for claim 11. App. Br. 5-9. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011), we select claim 1 as representative to decide the appeal as to claims 1-10 and 12-19. We address claim 11 separately. The Examiner found that Rose discloses all the features of claim 1, with the exception of “the demilitarized zone as claimed.” Ans. 3-4. The Examiner found that the use of a “demilitarized zone [(DMZ)] between two systems is old and well known in the art” and determined it would have been obvious to “modify Rose by including the use of DMZ in view of Combar to arrive at the claimed invention, since the use of secure network area DMZ is old and well know[n] in the art.” Id. at 4 (citing Combar, cols. 9-11; fig. 5). The Examiner added that it would have been obvious “to use the secure network area or DMZ [in Rose] to obtain obvious advantages provided by the secure network area or DMZ.” Id. at 6. Appellants argue that the Examiner “failed to provide some objective reason to combine the teachings of the references.” App. Br. 5. According to Appellants, “the ‘old and well known in the art’ rationale” is “contrary to Board precedents.” Id. at 6. We do not agree with Appellants that the Examiner failed to provide some objective reason to combine the teachings of the references. The Examiner’s articulated reason for the combination is to obtain the well- known additional security advantages afforded by a demilitarized zone (DMZ). Moreover, this function or advantage of a DMZ is clearly taught by Combar (col. 9, ll. 35-55). As such, the Examiner’s articulated reason for modifying Rose to include a DMZ has rational underpinnings. Appeal 2011-010898 Application 12/277,202 4 Appellants also argue that the modification proposed by the Examiner “is not a simple combination of prior art elements using known techniques to yield predictable results.” App. Br. 6. Appellants contend that the Examiner has provided no explanation as to how the DMZ concept of Combar can be combined with Rose. Id. at 7. According to Appellants, if the combination were made, only Rose’s network interface server would be in the DMZ, because Rose’s network interface server is functionally similar to the web server residing in Combar’s DMZ. Id. Thus, since both Rose’s network interface server and Combar’s web server send the message to the backend server without translating the message, the combination would not satisfy the claim language. Appellants’ argument appears to presume that claim 1 requires that the step of sending the second request according to a second protocol to the backend system be performed inside the DMZ. However, claim 1 does not explicitly recite such a requirement. In any event, Rose’s service agents 114, 116, and 118 translate job 124 from the frontend communications protocol to the appropriate backend communications protocol. Rose, paras. [0007], [0025]. Further, Rose discloses that communication system 110, which includes the service agents, and network interface 130 can reside on one server. Id. at para. [0029]. Thus, Appellants’ assertion that only Rose’s network interface 130 would be in the DMZ, if Rose were modified in view of Combar as proposed by the Examiner, is not convincing. Appellants also argue that the modification proposed by the Examiner would require “undue experimentation and a substantial reconstruction and redesign of Rose’s system, which demonstrates that the proposed Appeal 2011-010898 Application 12/277,202 5 combination is not a simple combination of known elements using known techniques to yield predictable results.” App. Br. 8. This argument amounts to unsupported attorney argument, and thus is entitled to little, if any, weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-10 and 12-19, which fall with claim 1. In contesting the rejection of claim 11, Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to establish the prima facie obviousness of a system as called for in claim 11 including “a backend user interface to provide local access to a user for a resource.” App. Br. 9. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner does not specifically point out where this feature is disclosed by Rose, or otherwise explain why it would have been obvious to provide Rose with such a feature. The Examiner’s statement that claims 8-19 “do not teach or further define[] over the limitations recited in claims 1-7” is unavailing in this regard. See Ans. 5. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed as to claims 1-10 and 12-19 and reversed as to claim 11. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation