Ex Parte Brinkley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2017

14231253 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 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.
14/231,253 03/31/2014 Capen Brinkley INTU148241 5063
64446 7590
Philip McKay
Hawley Troxell
P.O. Box 1617
Boise, ID 83701-1617
05/10/2017 EXAMINER
FAROOQUI, QUAZI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/10/2017 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):
seanlewis.esq @ gmail.com
ryoung@hawleytroxell.com
aholme @ hawley troxell. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CAPEN BRINKLEY, JAVIER GODINEZ,
THOMAS BISHOP, BRETT WEAVER,
M. SHANNON LIETZ, and
LUIS FELIPE CABRERA
Appeal 2017-001474
Application 14/231,253
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-001474
Application 14/231,253
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—36, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to implementing an application in the
production environment with two or more backend systems. Actual user
data is received, routed, and processed in the production environment using
a first backend system. Fabricated user data is received, routed, and
processed in the production environment using a second backend system.
Results data from the processing of the fabricated user data is analyzed to
evaluate the production environment. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A system for testing cloud based applications and
services in a production environment using segregated backend
systems comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor,
the at least one memory having stored therein instructions
which when executed by any set of the one or more processors,
perform a process for testing cloud based applications
and services in a production environment using segregated
backend systems
the process for testing cloud based applications and
services in a production environment using segregated backend
systems including:
implementing an application in a production
environment;
2
Appeal 2017-001474
Application 14/231,253
providing two or more segregated backend systems
associated with the implementation of the application in the
production environment;
receiving actual user data associated with the
application implemented in the production environment;
generating fabricated user data associated with the
application implemented in the production environment;
routing the actual user data such that the actual user data
is processed using the application implemented in the
production environment using a first segregated backend
system of the two or more segregated backend systems;
routing the fabricated user data such that the fabricated
user data is processed using the application implemented in the
production environment using a second segregated backend
system of the two or more segregated backend systems;
processing the fabricated user data using the application
implemented in the production environment and the second
segregated backend system to transform the fabricated user data
into fabricated user results data; and
analyzing the fabricated user results data to evaluate the
production environment and/or operation of the application in
the production environment.
Claims 1—36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Creamer et al. (US 2005/0066309 Al, published Mar. 24, 2005) and
Makonahalli et al. (US 2009/0288078 Al, published Nov. 19, 2009).
ANALYSIS
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 15) that
the combination of Creamer and Makonahalli would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “receiving actual
3
Appeal 2017-001474
Application 14/231,253
user data associated with the application implemented in the production
environment.”
The Examiner found that the performance specifications or system
load requirements for the host of Creamer, which can also be loaded into a
ghost agent, corresponds to the limitation “generating fabricated user data
associated with the application implemented in the production environment.”
(Final Act. 7.) We agree with the Examiner.
Creamer relates to computer software, in particular, “validating
software objects within a grid environment.” (1 2.) Figure 1 of Creamer
illustrates grid environment 100 enabled for ghost agents and hosts (120),
such that “grid environment 100 can be a distributed shared computing
environment where a pool of computing resources are accessible on an as
needed basis to a multitude of applications, users, and organizations” (127).
Figure 2 of Creamer illustrates grid environment 200, having validation
application 250 and testing application 252, such that “validation application
250 can manage validation operations and resulting data for multiple ghost
agents deployed within the grid environment 200.” (137.) Creamer
provides “[o]ne illustrative example of ghost agents 155 operating within a
grid environment 100 [which] can relate to a Massive Multi-Player Gaming
(MMPG) system” and “[e]ach player of the MMPG system can be
represented by a host 150 that responds to user instructions and interacts
with the gaming environment.” (132.) In this example of Creamer, “[g]host
agents 155 can be attached to selected players and can move within the grid
environment 100 according to the movements of the host 150.” (Id.)
Creamer further explains that “[t]he actions of the host can be replicated for
use by the associated ghost agent” (111) and “performance specifications
4
Appeal 2017-001474
Application 14/231,253
and/or system load requirements can be loaded into the ghost agent” (| 12).
Because Creamer explains that the host includes “performance specifications
and/or system load requirements” (i.e., data) and that such host is associated
with a player of an MMPG system (i.e., a user), Creamer teaches the
limitation “receiving actual user data associated with the application
implemented in the production environment.”
Appellants argue that “the performance specifications/load
requirements are not actual user data” but “[ijnstead, the performance
specifications and load requirements are part of the validation data, i.e.
performance standards, against which ghost/host actions are compared” and
“Creamer is silent regarding receiving actual user data.” (App. Br. 15
(emphasis omitted).) Other than providing a conclusory statement that
Creamer does not teach the limitations of claim 1, Appellants have not
provided any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s
findings are erroneous.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Creamer
and Makonahalli would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “receiving actual user data associated with the
application implemented in the production environment.”
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 12—
14; see also Reply Br. 3) that the combination of Creamer and Makonahalli
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation “generating fabricated user data associated with the application
implemented in the production environment.”
The Examiner found that the actions of the host of Creamer, which
can be replicated by a ghost agent, corresponds to the limitation “generating
5
Appeal 2017-001474
Application 14/231,253
fabricated user data associated with the application implemented in the
production environment.” (Final Act. 7.) In particular, the Examiner found
that “[g]host agent independently uses duplicated production data for
validation, [and] it is [a] second set of same data that is duplicated for testing
purpose, hence reference CREAMER teaches the claim limitation mentioned
in this section.” (Ans. 8.) We agree with the Examiner.
Claim 1 recites “generating fabricated user data” (emphasis added).
One relevant plain meaning of “fabricate” is “invent” or “create.”
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 415 (10th ed. 1999). Such
definition is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which provides the
following:
In one embodiment, the fabricated user data is data
similar to actual user data that would be generated by real, or
“actual” users and provided to the application for processing.
As a specific illustrative example, in the case where the
application is a financial management system, the fabricated
user data would include data replicating financial data as it
would be retrieved from various user accounts associated with
an actual user. As another specific illustrative example, in the
case where the application is a tax-preparation system, the
fabricated user data would include personal and financial data
associated with the fictitious, i.e., fabricated, user that is similar
to data that would be generated by an actual user.
(Spec. 145 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, we interpret “fabricated” as
invented or created, for example, “data replicating financial data as it would
be retrieved from various user accounts” or “personal and financial data
associated with the fictitious . . . user.” (Id. )
Creamer explains that “[t]he software agent can be called a host, and
the ghost agent can be associated or bound to the host” such that “[t]he
6
Appeal 2017-001474
Application 14/231,253
actions of the host can be replicated for use by the associated ghost agent”
and “[comparisons can then be performed based upon the replicated
actions.” (111.) Because Creamer explains that the ghost agent replicates
actions of the host, Creamer teaches the limitation “generating fabricated
user data associated with the application implemented in the production
environment.” In particular, because the claim limitation “fabricated user
data” can be reasonably interpreted as creating user data (e.g., “the
fabricated user data would include data replicating financial data as it would
be retrieved from various user accounts associated with an actual user”
(Spec. 143)), the claim limitation “fabricated user data” is broad enough to
encompass the data of the ghost agent of Creamer, because the ghost agent
replicates actions of the host.
Appellants argue “that it is the same data that causes both the host
agent and the ghost agent to perform the same action, e.g. a command
entered by a player in the example of a MMPG” and “[i]t is not proper for
the Office to assume that just because a single command of a user can cause
both the host agent and the ghost agent to perform an action, that somewhere
in this process Creamer must have somehow generated fabricated user data
in addition to receiving actual user data.” (App. Br. 12; see also Reply
Br. 3.) However, as discussed previously, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, the limitation “fabricated
user data” is broad enough to encompass the ghost agent data of Creamer.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Creamer
and Makonahalli would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “generating fabricated user data associated with the
application implemented in the production environment.”
7
Appeal 2017-001474
Application 14/231,253
Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 15—18)
that the combination of Creamer and Makonahalli would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations “routing the
actual user data” and “routing the fabricated user data.”
The Examiner found that the movement of the host and ghost agent
within the grid environment of Creamer corresponds to the limitations
“routing the actual user data” and “routing the fabricated user data.” (Final
Act. 8.) We agree with the Examiner.
As discussed previously, in one example of Creamer for the MMPG
system, “[gjhost agents 155 can be attached to selected players and can
move within the grid environment 100 according to the movements of the
host 150” (132) and “performance specifications and/or system load
requirements can be loaded into the ghost agent” (| 12). As illustrated in
Figure 4, Creamer further explains that “a host can be identified within the
grid environment in order to perform one or more validation operations
relating to the identified host.” (| 72.) Because Creamer explains that both
host 150 and ghost agent move within the grid environment 100 (i.e.
routing), Creamer teaches the limitations “routing the actual user data” and
“routing the fabricated user data.”
Appellants argue that “movement from one grid component to another
and replicating actions of a host by a ghost agent is not the same as
Appellant’s claimed ‘routing the fabricated user data such that the fabricated
data is processed . . . using a second segregated backend system’” but
“Creamer merely describes that a ghost agent goes from component to
component replicating the actions of a host.” (App. Br. 18.) Again, other
than providing a conclusory statement that Creamer does not teach the
8
Appeal 2017-001474
Application 14/231,253
limitations of claim 1, Appellants have not provided any persuasive
arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s findings are erroneous.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Creamer
and Makonahalli would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitations “routing the actual user data” and “routing the
fabricated user data.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2—12 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have
not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 13 and 25 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 25, as well as dependent claims 14—24
and 26—36, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—36 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