Ex Parte Butler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

10963138 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

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. 10/963,138 10/12/2004 Nicholas D. Butler GB920030081US1 (407) 9501 46320 7590 09/17/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER SANDERS, STEPHEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2012 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 NICHOLAS D. BUTLER, CHRISTINE M. DRAPER, JOHN W. SWEITZER, and MARCELLO VITALETTI ____________________ Appeal 2010-004615 Application 10/963,138 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004615 Application 10/963,138 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A solution manager apparatus for providing a solution for installation on a computer system, comprising: a computer readable storage medium storing a package comprising a plurality of software components of the solution and a solution definition defining, in logical terms, the topology requirements of the solution; and an installation module configured to communicate the package from the computer readable storage medium to a solution deployer. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner reject claims 1-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sweitzer (US 7,072,900 B2, Jul. 4, 2006). Ans. 3.1 Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Sweitzer does not teach the claimed “a plurality of software components of the solution and a solution definition defining, in logical terms, the topology requirements of the solution.” (App. Br. 7-9, Reply Br. 3). 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 4, and 6-39. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2010-004615 Application 10/963,138 3 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claim 1 because Sweitzer does not teach that claimed “package.” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants contend that Sweitzer does not teach or suggest that the solution definition is packaged with the software components. Id. 3. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting claim 1 because Sweitzer does not teach or suggest the claimed “topology requirements.” (App. Br. 8). Appellants further contend that the teachings of Sweitzer “are almost directly opposite to that claimed” because Sweitzer describes application components that are topography neutral. (Reply Br. 3). 4. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting dependent claim 3 because Sweitzer does not teach the claimed “target hosting environment.” (App. Br. 10). 5. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting dependent claim 5 because Sweitzer does not teach the claimed “solution parameters.” (App. Br. 10-11). Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-39 as being anticipated because Sweitzer fails to teach the argued limitations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ above contentions 1-5. With regard to claims 1-39, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the Appeal 2010-004615 Application 10/963,138 4 reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 4-22) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4-5) that, in Figs. 2, 4, 5, 8, and 11 and col.13, ll. 23-29, Sweitzer teaches or suggests “a plurality of software components of the solution.” Sweitzer explicitly teaches solutions defined in terms of topology requirements. (Figure 4; col. 2, ll. 19-28; col. 4, ll. 58-67; and col.13, ll. 23-29). As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments. Sweitzer teaches or suggests software components that can be installed and deployed to meet the identified topography needs. (Col. 6, ll. 44-60). Also, Sweitzer teaches using a package with the software components. (Col. 7, ll. 12-30). As to Appellants’ above contention 3, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments. As discussed above with regard to contention 1, Sweitzer discloses topology requirements. (Figure 4). Sweitzer also teaches or suggests topography neutral components. (Col. 11, ll. 47-51). Thus, Sweitzer teaches or suggests both “topology requirements” and “topography neutral” components. In this regard, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 21) that the topography neutral are “installed on top” of the topology required components. As to Appellants’ above contention 4, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 22) that Sweitzer’s “target platform” (Figure 4) equates to the claimed “target host environment.” (See also Col. 5, ll. 3-8). Appeal 2010-004615 Application 10/963,138 5 As to Appellants’ above contention 5, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6, 22) that Sweitzer’s “component library” (Figure 4) equates to the claimed “solution parameters.” (See also Col. 8, ll. 25-57). CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-39 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). (2) Claims 1-39 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-39 are 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 ke