Appeal 2006-3356
Application 10/244,722
client program via an “MFS XML” adapter, and returning a response to the
client program via the adapter at least in part using an MFS output descriptor
to translate information from a MFS IMS component to XML. The claim
requires translation of information between a legacy (“MFS”) application
and a later (“XML”) application.
The Examiner might have rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), in view of Najmi’s teachings regarding the need for automated
electronic transactions for multiple partners having different formats and
protocols (e.g., col. 1, ll. 46-65), its description of the B2B message adapter
generation tool, and a prior art description of an MFS-based system. We
presume that Appellants would have acknowledged that the artisan at the
time of invention would consider the teachings of Najmi as applicable to a
business partner that happens to have an MFS-based system. However, we
can sustain the § 102 rejection that has been applied without departing from
the principles of anticipation, on three separate bases.
First, as we have indicated, Appellants assert that the claims cover all
structural and functional equivalents of the claimed adapter and output
descriptor and have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s relevant
findings.
Second, MFS-based IMS applications were known in the prior art, as
evidenced in this record (e.g., Appellants’ background statement in the
specification). The artisan would have appreciated that the message adapter
described by Najmi is applicable to translating transactions between a legacy
MFS-based system and a system that sends and receives information in
XML format. Najmi places the artisan in possession of the invention as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013