Ex Parte Ananthanarayanan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 2017

13595860 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

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. 13/595,860 08/27/2012 Rema Ananthanarayanan IN920090109US2(790.045C) 8033 89885 7590 01/30/2017 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 EXAMINER TAYLOR, BROOKE JAZMOND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2181 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2017 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 REMA ANANTHANARAYANAN, VINATHA CHATURVEDI, VIJIL E. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN, PRASAD M. DESHPANDE, RAGHURAM KRISHNAPURAM, and SHAJEER K. MOHAMMED Appeal 2016-000574 Application 13/595,860 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, AMBER L. HAGY, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—10 and 12—14. Claim 11 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-000574 Application 13/595,860 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to “simplified and automated arrangements and methods for extracting dependency data from packages of bundled products, thus permitting more efficient installation and disk space usage in connection with the bundled product” (Spec. 1 7). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: utilizing at least one processor to execute computer code configured to perform the steps of: extracting file system structures corresponding to each of at least two software products; identifying, from the file system structures, matching subtrees that represent subtrees of more than one directory across the at least two software products; and based on the candidate subtrees, generating a dependency graph which indicates: common components across at least two software products; and dependencies among the common components. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1—8, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gupta (US 2006/0026157 Al; Feb 2, 2006). The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Gupta and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Gupta and Wookey (US 2008/0201705 Al). 2 Appeal 2016-000574 Application 13/595,860 The Examiner rejected claims 1—8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Gupta and DeHaan (US 2010/0223609 Al). The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Gupta, DeHaan, and AAPA. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Gupta, DeHaan, and Wookey. ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Gupta discloses all the elements of Appellants’ claims including the limitations “extracting file system structures corresponding to each of at least two software products” and “identifying, from the file system structures, matching subtrees that represent subtrees of more than one directory across the at least two software products” (App. Br. 11—12; Final Act. 2—\\ Ans. 3). Particularly, Appellants contend Gupta is directed to HTML pages and items available on the Web, which is not the same as file system structures of software products as claimed (App. Br. 11). Appellants further contend the Document Model Object1 (DOM) tree disclosed in Gupta does not identify, from file system structures, matching subtrees of more than one directory across at least two software products as claimed. We agree. 1 “Document Object Model” is a specification “that describes the structure of dynamic HTML and XML documents in a way that allows them to be manipulated through a Web browser.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition 171 (Microsoft Press 2002). 3 Appeal 2016-000574 Application 13/595,860 The Examiner finds Gupta’s data source is “equivalent to the software product of [the] instant application. (Paragraph [0002 and 0008])” (Ans. 3; Final Act. 3). However, the Examiner has merely stated this without explanation as to how file system structures2 in software products are the same as Gupta’s data sources.3 Gupta is directed to extracting generic data from semi-structured documents; in contrast, claim 1 specifically requires “extracting file system structures corresponding to each of at least two software products.” As to the Examiner finding the DOM tree, in Figure 3 and paragraphs 41—45 of Gupta, discloses “identifying, from the file system structures, matching subtrees that represent subtrees of more than one directory across the at least two software products” as claimed, we do not agree (Final Act. 3). The Examiner has not shown where in Gupta matching subtrees that represent subtrees of more than one directory across at least two software products are identified. Thus, we agree with Appellants the Examiner erred in finding Gupta anticipates claims 1—8, 10 and 13. 2 “The file system structure is the most basic level of organization in an operating system. Almost all of the ways an operating system interacts with its users, applications, and security model are dependent upon the way it organizes files on storage devices. Providing a common file system structure ensures users and programs are able to access and write files.” Chapter 1, Section 1.1 Copyright © 2006 Red Hat, Inc. https://www.centos.Org/docs/5/html/Deployment Guide-en-US/ch- filesystem.html, last visited Jan. 17, 2017. See also httpi/7cs.gmu.edu/ ~menasc-e/cs471 /slides/eh 12.pdf (2003), last visited Jan. 17, 2017. 3 Web Style Guide: Basic Design Principles for Creating Web Sites / Edition 3, publ. Jan. 15, 2009, Yale University Press. http: // web style guide .com/ ws g3 /, last visited Jan. 17, 2017. 4 Appeal 2016-000574 Application 13/595,860 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 The Examiner relies on DeHaan for disclosing common components across two different software products and includes generating a dependency map as shown in Figure 1 and noted in paragraph 20 (Ans. 4; Final Act. 7— 8). Appellants contend although there is a dependency map mentioned in DeHaan (| 20), there is nothing in paragraph 20 about the dependency map based on candidate subtrees as claimed (App. Br. 14). The Examiner’s Answer appears to rely on Gupta for the elements not found in DeHaan in the Final Action (Ans. 4). As we find Gupta does not disclose what it was relied on for, and as DeHaan fails to cure the deficiencies of Gupta, we agree with Appellants the Examiner erred in finding claims 1—9 and 12—14 obvious over the collective teachings of the cited references. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10 and 12—14 is reversed. REVERSED 5