Ex Parte Balachandran et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2019

14626735 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/626,735 02/19/2015
58735 7590 02/01/2019
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Biju Balachandran
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.
000005-047900US 4823
EXAMINER
KABIR, MOHAMMAD H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 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@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BIJU BALA CHAND RAN and NIRAJ KUMAR 1
Appeal2018-005707
Application 14/626,735
Technology Center 2100
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, 17, 18, and
20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "SAP SE, a corporation."
App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are cancelled.
Appeal2018-005707
Application 14/626,735
INVENTION
The invention performs an "automatic selection and customization of
landscape guides." Spec., Title ( emphasis omitted). According to
Appellants, a landscape is an arrangement of servers, and users follow
installation guides to perform a landscape's software upgrades. Id. ,r 1. The
invention determines the relevant portions of such guides for users by, in
part, identifying the software applications and versions that are already
installed. Id. ,r,r 2-3.
Independent claim 7 is illustrative of a disputed claim feature and
reproduced, below, with emphasis on this feature.
7. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a customer request to modify a
customer landscape that includes a plurality of computer
systems, wherein the customer request describes a desired
configuration for a software application to execute on a
computer system of the customer landscape;
retrieving, by the processor, information describing a current
configuration of the software application or the computer
system;
determining, by the processor, a software logistics process
according to the current configuration and the desired
configuration, the software logistics process describing a
process to implement the desired configuration of the software
application, wherein determining the software logistics process
compnses:
comparing, by the processor, a first version identifier for
the current configuration against a second version
identifier for the desired configuration,
determining, by the processor, the software logistics
process based on the comparison, and
2
Appeal2018-005707
Application 14/626,735
wherein the software logistics process is determined to
be an installation when the first version identifier is set to
NIL·
'
generating, by the processor, a landscape guide query according
to the software logistics process, the customer request, and the
information, the landscape guide query being configured to
identify a plurality of downloaded universal landscape guides
stored in a guides database, the plurality of downloaded
universal landscape guides providing instructions to implement
the desired configuration of the software application;
customizing, by the processor, a personalized landscape guide
from the plurality of downloaded universal landscape guides
according to the information describing the current
configuration of the software application and a language of the
customer, the personalized landscape guide including an impact
analysis describing an effect of the software logistics process
upon the customer landscape, the personalized landscape guide
comprising instructions in the language of the customer;
running, by the processor, the landscape guide query; and
receiving, by the processor, the personalized landscape guide
returned from the query.
App. Br. 16-17.
REJECTI0NS 3
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cheng (US 6,151,643; Nov. 21,
3 The Final Action's statements of the rejections fail to account for the
Examiner's subsequent entry of claim amendments. See Adv. Act. (Oct. 25,
2017) (entry of claim amendments); Arndt. Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116
(Sept. 22, 2017). The Amendment "rolled" claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 19
into claims 7, 14, and 20--that is, canceled claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 19,
added their limitations to claims 7, 14, and 20 (specifically to the ensuing
one of these claims), and amended claims 7, 14, and 20 to be
3
Appeal2018-005707
Application 14/626,735
2000), Said (US 2016/0170732 Al; June 16, 2016), Meier
(US 2013/0117700 Al; May 9, 2013), Alsina (US 2014/0223423 Al;
Aug. 7, 2014), and Back (US 2007/0220507 Al; Sept. 20,
2007). Final Act. 6-14, 17-20 (July 27, 2017).
The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cheng, Said, Meier, Alsina, Back, and McCaleb
(US 6,751,794 Bl; June 15, 2004). Final Act. 15-17.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 7, 14, AND 20
Appellants argue claims 7, 14, and 20 as a group as they contain
similar limitations and were rejected by the Examiner over the same
references. App. Br. 12-13. Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to
show Back, one of the applied references, teaches "wherein the software
logistics process is determined to be an installation when the first version
identifier is set to NIL," as recited in each of the claims. Id.
As the Examiner and Appellants dispute whether this limitation is
taught by the software upgrade process of Back's Figure 7 (see infra), we
begin with an explanation of this process and its steps as shown by Figure 7
(the illustrated process flow), reproduced below.
independent. Adv. Act. (Cont'n Sheet). Our listing of the rejections
corrects the statements of the rejections to: (i) add, if a rejected claim now
recites or incorporates the limitations of a rolled claim, the prior art
references cited against the rolled claim; (ii) account for changes in
claim dependencies; and (iii) remove claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 19.
4
Appeal2018-005707
Application 14/626,735
(START) ....... ~~~~1~'~=- ..
.... ··---~
I .
~ , ..... --. ~61
I l"l r
Back's Figure 7, above, is a flow chart of operations for
determining components in need of installation or an upgrade.
The process automates a "baseline" software upgrade, installing the
minimum components ( software applications) and updating to the minimum
versions ( of those components/ applications) needed by an integrated
software program. Back ,r 43. Generally speaking, the process determines
the baseline components/versions lacked by the system (id. ,r,r 45--46) and
then obtains those components/versions (id. ,r,r 47--48). The process first
"calls" the system's "version repository 24" for "component information"
5
Appeal2018-005707
Application 14/626,735
about at least one "component(i)" (Step 164). Id. ,r,r 33, 45; see also
id. ,r,r 20-22 (general description of the repository 24), 27 ("version
repository 24 may contain ... a first table [ of] the actual version numbers of
components installed ... [and] other tables [of] baselines"). If the call
results in an error (Step 166: Yes), then the process determines whether "the
error ... indicates that there is no component information corresponding to
the [component(i)]" (Step 168). Id. ,r 45. If so, i.e., component information
does not "exist" for the component(i) (Step 168:No), then the process
determines whether the component(i) is a baseline component
(Step 169). Id. If so, i.e., a baseline component is "missing"
(Step 169: Yes), then the process prompts the system to install the missing
baseline component (Steps 178' and 179) and reports the above-noted error
(Step 172). Id. ,I,I 45, 48.
The Examiner finds the disputed limitation is taught by the above
steps. Ans. 5---6. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Appellants'
Specification describes the claimed "version identifier ... set to NIL" as
being merely an indicator that software is not installed. Id. at 6. The
Examiner accordingly interprets the claimed "version identifier ... set to
NIL" as being data that indicates a target software upgrade will require a
software installation. Id. The Examiner finds Back's reported error
(Step 172) teaches such an identifier when reported as a "particular error
code" (Back ,r 33) indicating that a baseline component(i) is "missing"
(Step 169:Yes and 172) and will accordingly be installed (Steps 178' and
179). Ans. 5---6 ( citing Back ,r,r 34--35).
Appellants argue that Back's returned error does not teach the claimed
"version identifier ... set to NIL" because: "[T]he claims recite a version
6
Appeal2018-005707
Application 14/626,735
identifier whose value is explicitly set to NIL. Given this explicit population
of the version identifier ... , in no sense would any 'ERROR' be returned."
App. Br. 12-13 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 7. Appellants further
argue that Back's only illustrated identifiers are not used as the returned
error, contending: "Figure 3B of the Back reference does describe ... a
'component ID' field 56. Despite the apparent availability of such an ID
field, however, [Back] chooses instead to rely upon the ERROR-based
mechanism." App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 7.
We are unpersuaded because Appellants' arguments do not address
the Examiner's specific finding that the claimed "version identifier ... set to
NIL" can be interpreted as an indication that software is not installed. See
Final Act. 4, 20-21; Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ,r 24); see also App. Br. 6-9
("Summary of Claimed Subject Matter" section stating Spec. ,r,r 7, 24, 33
describe the claimed "version identifier ... set to NIL"). Consistent with the
Examiner's claim interpretation, Appellants' Specification states: "[t]he
software logistics process [is] an installation when the first version identifier
is set to NIL" (Spec. ,r 7); "version is NIL[,] e.g., the software application is
not installed" (id. ,r 24); "version is NIL, implying that no versions ... have
been installed" (id. ,r 33). See also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.").
Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner's claim interpretation with sufficient
reasoning or evidence. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 7. Instead, Appellants
present a conclusory assertion that the "version identifier ... set to NIL"
( claim 7) must be interpreted as an explicit NIL value of a populated ID
field. Id. In light of the Specification disclosures, we disagree that the
7
Appeal2018-005707
Application 14/626,735
claimed "first version identifier" must be interpreted as a populated value of
a field.
Appellants' arguments also fail to address the Examiner's findings
regarding Back's paragraphs 33-35. Ans. 6-7, 10. As discussed supra,
Back therein describes a "particular error code" that indicates a component
is "missing" and will accordingly be installed. Back ,r,r 33-35; see also
supra 5 (Examiner's findings). By indicating the repository 24 is not cached
with version information for the called component(i) (Back ,r 33), the
"particular error code" indicates that a corresponding index of the repository
24 is set to NIL with respect to version information (i.e., indicates a lack of
such information) because the component is not installed. See also Ans. 10
(addressing Back ,r,r 31-35). Thus, even assuming the claimed "version
identifier ... set to NIL" must be something other than an error code ( as is
argued), the Examiner has shown that Back's above index is set to NIL with
respect to version information (Ans. 6-7, 10). Appellants do not argue that
Back's above index fails to teach a "version identifier ... set to NIL" as
claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the
obviousness rejection of independent claims 7, 14, and 20 over Cheng, Said,
Meier, Alsina, and Back. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3-5, 10-12, 17, AND 18
Claims 3-5, 10-12, 17, and 18 each depend from one independent
claims 7, 14, and 20 addressed above. Appellants merely separate these
claims into three groups-(i) claims 3, 10, and 17; (ii) claims 4, 11, and 18;
(iii) claims 5 and 12-and reassert the above-addressed arguments for each
group. App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 8-9. Accordingly, we sustain the
8
Appeal2018-005707
Application 14/626,735
obviousness rejections of: claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 over Cheng, Said,
Meier, Alsina, and Back; and claims 5 and 12 over Cheng, Said, Meier,
Alsina, Back, and McCaleb.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, 17, 18,
and 20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9