Ciambella Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 15, 2021

2019006607 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2021)

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. 15/163,280 05/24/2016 Jean-Baptiste Leonelli TEM021 1077 54698 7590 03/15/2021 MOSER TABOADA 1030 BROAD STREET SUITE 203 SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702 EXAMINER SPRINGER, JAMES E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2021 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@mtiplaw.com llinardakis@mtiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JEAN-BAPTISTE and TRISALA CHANDARIA ____________________ Appeal 2019-006607 Application 15/163,280 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). According to Appellant, Ciambella Ltd. is the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2019-006607 Application 15/163,280 2 INVENTION Appellant’s invention, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Triggering Execution of a Workflow Over a Network” (Title), “generally relate[s] to workflow deployment and execution, and, more particularly to a method, apparatus and user interface for triggering execution of one or more workflows over a network” (Spec. ¶ 1), where a “workflow defines two or more tasks,” and “[e]xamples of the tasks include downloading information from remote servers, converting files between formats, processing updates, communicating with customer or order-management systems, sending email messages, automatically backing up changes, etc.” (Spec. ¶ 3). Appellant’s disclosed invention operates on and executes workflows “in which access to and communication of input information among the computer systems having both compatible and disparate platforms and/or protocols does not require customized interfaces” (Spec. ¶ 7). In this manner, deployment and execution of workflows “may be provided despite updates, upgrades or other changes to the computer systems” (Spec. ¶ 7). Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method for triggering execution of a workflow over a network, the method comprising: receiving, at a host, from a user device, an instruction to execute a workflow comprising a first task for being executed on a first remote device; [A] receiving, at the host, network settings from the user device to enable [A1] communication of the first task to the first remote device and [A2] execution of the first task on the first remote device; Appeal 2019-006607 Application 15/163,280 3 applying the network settings to at least one of the host or the first remote device; and executing the first task on the first remote device using the network settings upon receiving the instructions from the user device, wherein the workflow comprises a plurality of tasks for being executed on a plurality of remote devices, the plurality of tasks including the first task, and the plurality of remote devices including the first remote device, and wherein the network settings include settings for establishing communication between two or more of the host and the plurality of remote devices. Appeal Br. 21, Claims Appendix (emphases and bracketed material added). Remaining independent claim 14 recites an “apparatus for triggering execution of a workflow over a network” comprising a host having at least one processor and a memory with instructions executable to perform the method set forth in claim 1. EXAMINER’S REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leonelli et al. (US 2009/0070121 A1; published March 12, 2009) (hereinafter, “Leonelli”) and Eizadi et al. (US 2016/0043991 A1; published Feb. 11, 2016) (hereinafter, “Eizadi”). Final Act. 2–11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 7–20) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–9), the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2–11), and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments (Ans. 3– 17). Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of all of the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2019-006607 Application 15/163,280 4 Appellant presents several arguments asserting the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, relying on the combination of Leonelli and Eizadi, is in error (see Appeal Br. 7–15; Reply Br. 2–8). The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is whether or not the Examiner erred in finding Eizadi teaches or suggests “receiving, at the host, network settings from the user device to enable” (claim 1, limitation A) “communication of the first task to the first remote device” (claim 1, limitation A1) as recited in claim 1, and as commensurately recited in remaining independent claim 14. The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on a finding that Eizadi’s paragraphs 53 and 54 and Figure 11 teaches or suggests limitations A and A1 of claim 1, and as commensurately set forth in claim 14 (see Final Act. 3). Appellant persuasively argues that Eizadi is drawn to virtual resources and provisioning Internet Protocol addresses thereto (see Title; Abstract; ¶¶ 2, 17), and as such, neither (i) discloses the recited host, user device, and remote devices as arranged in the claims (see Appeal Br. 7); nor (ii) discloses or suggests “communication of the first task to the first remote device” as recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claim 14). We find the Examiner’s determination that Eizadi’s allocation of IP addresses in a virtual environment instructs execution of workflows in the manner claimed is unreasonable. In this light, we agree with Appellant’s contentions (see Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 4–8) that, on this record, Eizadi only teaches assignment of IP addresses in a virtual environment, and not “receiving, at the host, network settings from the user device to enable Appeal 2019-006607 Application 15/163,280 5 communication of the first task to the first remote device” (claim 1, limitations A, A1).2 In view of the foregoing, Appellant has shown that Eizadi fails to teach or suggest “receiving, at the host, network settings from the user device to enable communication of the first task to the first remote device” (see, e.g., claim 1, limitations A and A1), as required by claim 1, and as similarly required by claim 14. Therefore, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, as well as claims 2–13 and 15–20 depending respectively therefrom. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103(a) Leonelli, Eizadi 1–20 REVERSED 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).