Ex Parte Auvenshine et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2012

11296912 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte JOHN J. AUVENSHINE, JUSTIN C. BLACKBURN,
and NICOLAS E. FOSDICK
_____________

Appeal 2010-006729
Application 11/296,912
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006729
Application 11/296,912

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 16.

We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for managing a change to a
computer program which accesses servers to perform functions. The method
involves notifying the people responsible for the servers accessed of the
change in the computer program. See page 3 of Appellants’ Specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A computer implemented method for managing a change
to a computer program in a computer system, said method
comprising the steps of:
receiving notification of a changed computer program in
said computer system;
determining, by automatically querying configuration
files of said changed computer program, one or more servers
which said changed computer program accesses to perform one
or more functions, wherein said querying is performed by
running one or more agent programs in said one or more servers
and wherein said determining of said one or more servers which
said changed computer program accesses includes determining
a type of operating system utilized by said one or more servers;
determining one or more other computer programs in one
or more other servers which access said one or more servers,
wherein said determining of said one or more computer
programs in said one or more other servers is performed by
running one or more other agent programs in said one or more
other servers that automatically query configuration files of said
changed computer program, and wherein said determining of
said one or more computer programs in said one or more other
servers which access said one or more servers includes
Appeal 2010-006729
Application 11/296,912

3

determining a type of operating system utilized by said one or
more other servers; and
generating a notification of said changed computer
program to one or more interested owners of said one or more
servers and said one or more other servers determined to access
said changed computer program in said computer system,
wherein said notification generated corresponds to a respective
type of operating system specified by a respective owner
interested in receiving notification of said changed computer
program accessed by a respective server using said respective
type of operating system.

REFERENCES
Othmer US 6,167,358 Dec. 26, 2000
Das US 2004/0060044 A1 Mar. 25, 2004
Black US 7,143,153 B1 Nov. 28, 2006

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 16 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Answer 4-6. 1
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 10 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Black in view of Das. Answer 6-
15.
The Examiner has rejected claims 11 through 16 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Black in view of Othmer.
Answer 15-22.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
January 25, 2010.
Appeal 2010-006729
Application 11/296,912

4

The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Answer 23.

ISSUES
Rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph
Appellants argue on pages 12 and 13 of the Appeal Brief2 and page 2
of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first
paragraph is in error. These contentions present us with the issue: did the
Examiner err in finding Appellants’ originally filed disclosure does not show
possession of the feature of generating a notification that corresponds to a
type of operating system on the server accessed by the changed program as
claimed?

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 1-10
Appellants argue on pages 14 and 15 of the Appeal Brief and page 2
of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and
6 is in error. These arguments present us with the issue: did the Examiner
err in finding the combination of Black and Das teaches that a determination
is made with respect to the servers which the changed program access in
order to perform one or more functions? 3

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated October 22,
2009, and Reply Brief dated March 24, 2010.
3 We note that Appellants present arguments present additional issues which
we do not reach as this issue is dispositive of the appeal of the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 10.

Appeal 2010-006729
Application 11/296,912

5

Claims 11-16
Appellants argue, on pages 30-31 of the Brief, that the rejection of
these claims is in error for reasons similar to those discussed with respect to
claim 1. Thus, we are presented with the issue: did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Black and Othmer teaches a determination is
made with respect to the servers which the changed program access in order
to perform one or more functions?

ANALYSIS
Rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner
erred in finding Appellants’ originally filed disclosure does not show
possession of the feature of generating a notification that corresponds to a
type of operating system on the server accessed by the changed program as
claimed. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments and concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that the originally
filed specification does not demonstrate possession of the limitation as
claimed. We note Appellants’ argument that the statement on page 16 of the
Specification (which discusses owners setting rules for notification if
specific changes such as new code or configuration changes) is not
persuasive of error as the cited passage does not address the claimed
limitation. We consider the passage on page 16 (lines 23-25) of Appellants’
Specification to be referring to the owner identifying the type of changes
being reported, not the claimed operating system of the server which is being
Appeal 2010-006729
Application 11/296,912

6

accessed by the changed program. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph.

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 1-10
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Black and Das teaches a determination is made
with respect to the servers which the changed program access in order to
perform one or more functions. Independent claims 1 and 6 each recite a
limitations directed to making such determination. The Examiner responds
to Appellants’ augments by finding that Black teaches this feature citing
disclosures in columns 89 and 149 of Black. Answer 29-30. We have
reviewed the Examiner’s findings and the cited disclosures of Black, while
we agree that Black keeps track of changes in a network, we do not find that
the cited evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Black teaches
determination of the servers accessed by the changed program.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 6 and the claims which depend upon claims 1 and 6.

Claims 11-16
As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments directed to these claims
present us with an issue similar to that discussed with respect to claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 14 each recite limitations directed to making
determinations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1. Neither the
Examiner’s reasoning in the rejection (page 19 of the Answer) nor the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments (page 35 of the Answer)
Appeal 2010-006729
Application 11/296,912

7

makes a finding related to a teaching in Othmer that makes up for the
deficiency noted in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 14 and the claims which
depend upon claims 11 and 14.

DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph.
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 16 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc