Ex Parte Fernandez

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2018

13657099 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/657,099 10/22/2012
46320 7590 05/30/2018
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Genaro Nieto Fernandez
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
GB920110068US1 (772) 9880
EXAMINER
LIN, HUI-WEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2018 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 GENARO NIETO FERNANDEZ
Appeal2017-002772
Application 13/657,099
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the Applicant, International Business Machines Corp.,
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-002772
Application 13/657,099
Introduction
Appellant's Specification discusses issues with integrating software
systems with each other, which can be a particular problem with older
(legacy) software. Spec. 1:21-2:14. Appellant describes the invention,
which addresses such integration issues, as
relat[ing] to a method ... for providing a software interface
arranged to enable a first computer program to execute
application logic of a second computer program, wherein said
second program comprises display logic in close association
with the application logic such that said application logic is
operable via said display logic.
Spec. 1:12-17.
Claim 1 representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for enabling a first computer program to
execute application logic of a second computer program
compnsmg:
identifying in a first computer program executing in a
first computer a predetermined display window associated with
a selected application logic flow of a second computer program
executing in a second computer, the first computer program
acting as a wrapper for the second computer program;
detecting by the first computer program the provision of
the predetermined display window by the second computer
program; and,
responding to the detection by a) reading data from a
predetermined output of said display window for provision to
said first computer program; b) writing data to a predetermined
input to said display window for input to said second computer
program; and c) providing a predetermined execution command
to said second computer program for initiating processing of
said selected application logic flow associated with said display
window.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2017-002772
Application 13/657,099
Appellant's Figure 1, reproduced here with added annotations, shows
components of an embodiment of the disclosed and claimed invention:
105
108
lntemet
Browser
Application
Program
101
"\
104
106
102
Web Server
Application Program
109
Legacy
....---- Application
Program
107
"Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of a computer system in which a first
computer program is interfaced with a second computer program via an
interface program." Spec. 7:6-8
Rejections2 & References
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Terada Yoshiyasu (JP 2002-334058 (A);
Nov. 22, 2002) ("Terada") 3 and Masuda Kazunori et al. (JP 2003-114874
(A); Apr. 18, 2003) ("Masuda"). Final Act. 4--27.
Claim 9 stands rejected under§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Terada,
Masuda, and Able et al. (US 2010/0146396 Al; June 10, 2010). Final Act.
27-29.
2 We note that after Appellant filed the Appeal Brief, the Examiner withdrew
rejections of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112(b) (or pre-AIA § 112,
,r 2). See Ans. 2 and Final Act. 2-5.
3 We note the Examiner and Appellant refer to this document as Y oshiyasu;
we refer to it by using the inventor's surname, Terada.
3
Appeal2017-002772
Application 13/657,099
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Terada teaches all recited
elements. Final Act. 4--6 (citing Terada ,r,r 4, 8, 10-11, 18-20, 24); see also
id. at 6-7 (finding Masuda also more explicitly teaches "the first computer
program acting as a wrapper for the second computer program"). Appellant
argues the Examiner errs because Terada has "no teaching that any process
occurs in response to the provision of the 'starting point screen'." App.
Br. 12 (referring to the discussion in Terada ,r 18). Specifically, Appellant
contends
Id.
the portion of [Terada] referred to by Examiner teaches only the
use of an emulator to carry out the emulation of a dedicated
terminal for the mainframe faithfully, by analyzing a data
stream of mainframe screen information data sent via a session
management section from the mainframe, and the display of the
data stream on an emulator screen. The operation of the
emulator is not in response to the provisioning of a
predetermined display window associated with a selected
application logic flow of a second computer program.
The Examiner responds by finding Terada teaches "provisioning of a
predetermined display window" by teaching "the mainframe (i.e. second
computer) sends mainframe screen data (i.e.[, a] predetermined display
window) to the emulator executing on the [mainframe] application executive
system (i.e.[, the] first computer)" and that "[i]n response to the transmission
of the screen data, the emulator is triggered to emulate the mainframe
application by analyzing and processing the mainframe screen data." Ans. 5
(citing Terada ,r 18). We agree with this finding.
We specifically disagree with Appellant's reply that "[t]he
transmission of screen data cannot be fairly construed to mean a
4
Appeal2017-002772
Application 13/657,099
'predetermined' display window as there is no teaching in [Terada] that the
screen data is 'predetermined'." Reply Br. 7. Appellant reads Terada too
narrowly. "A reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way
of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing
and attempting to protect." EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d
898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Ordinarily skilled artisans would have
understood Terada's screen data is for display in a window, consistent with
Appellant's claim and Specification.
Terada's Figure 1 is instructive, reproduced here with annotations
added to identify its components:
' 1
! ____ ,:·,, ·'·"·'-'~-y:,:;r,~·.,,·f'-:.l.::i,,:.1._, ___ j
: :
j ::-~~;d ;_· ::::--...~I·'m.~:~· -::-f ::b~::3: ... ~ 3 j
~- .-:?: •. -~~ ~ ',; )! ~ :' _:, ~- ~--• .:,:~-t.vK'.• . .:•.~ ' __ ./ '
Terada Figure 1 shows a "configuration diagram of the M/F [(mainframe)]
application executive system" of its disclosed invention. See
Terada Description of Drawings (following Terada ,r 53).
Terada's Figure 1 is remarkably similar to Figure 1 in Appellant's
Specification. The following table illustrates the distinct correspondence of
Terada to Appellant's disclosure:
5
Appeal2017-002772
Application 13/657,099
Appellant's Figure 1
First computer 102
Second computer 103
Network 104
Third computer 105
Web Server Application Program 106
Interface Program 109
Legacy Application Program 107
Terada Figure 1
General purpose server 1
Mainframe 9
Network L
Client computer 2
Web application server 13
Emulation server 11
(see Terada Figures 2-9)
We note Appellant discloses second computer 103 is an IBMâ„¢
AS/400 mainframe, and that the display screens created by the legacy
application program 107 are the data stream that the AS/400 mainframe
provides to an IBMâ„¢ 5250 terminal. See Spec. 8: 12-9:3. In view of this,
we agree with the Examiner's findings that Terada' s mainframe "application
executive system (via the emulator and macro execution part) performs
additional processing based macros that correspond to starting point screens
of the M/F application." Ans. 5; see also id. at 6 (explaining that starting
point screens can be a login screen, a menu screen, a search condition input
screen, etc., and that execution of macros in Terada results in screen changes
"by using a predetermined display screen as a starting point screen among
the display screens" under the control of the emulator and the macro)
(additionally citing Terada ,r,r 10, 30, 33; see also Terada Figs. 2-9).
Appellant further argues the Examiner's Answer is contradictory
because it maps both a "starting point screen" and "screen data" to the
recited "predetermined display window". Reply Br. 7 (further contending
the Examiner's mapping of a "user interface for inputting to the M/F
application" to the "predetermined display window" constitutes the
6
Appeal2017-002772
Application 13/657,099
Examiner contradictorily trying to "have it three different ways"). This
argument is unpersuasive. Appellant parses the Examiner's terminology too
finely. As ordinarily skilled artisans understand, consistent with Appellant's
Specification, see Spec. 8: 12-9:3, the display of a "starting point screen" is
display of "screen data," and that a "user interface for inputting to the M/F
application," such as the login screen in Terada's Figure 2, can serve as a
starting point screen (created by display of screen data).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1. In doing so, we adopt as our own the Examiner's findings and
reasons set forth in the final rejection and in the Answer. Appellant argues
Examiner error for claims 2-20 based solely on the arguments presented for
claim 1. See App. Br. 8-13. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of
claims 2-20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 1-2 0.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7