Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 2013

11185461 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/185,461 07/20/2005 INV001Yee Kang Chang CA920050010US1 (030) 4627 46320 7590 03/18/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER LOTTICH, JOSHUA P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2113 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2013 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 YEE KANG CHANG and BOSCO LI ____________ Appeal 2010-007683 Application 11/185,461 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, STEPHEN C. SIU, and RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-9. Claims 1-5 and 10-13 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE The disclosed invention relates generally to test automation across multiple host computing platforms (Spec. 1). Independent claim 6 reads as follows: Appeal 2010-007683 Application 11/185,461 2 6. A method for multi-platform test automation, the method comprising: processing topology data to configure a testing environment for a specified host computing platform; formatting test commands in a syntax for said specified host computing platform; dispatching said formatted test commands to said host computing platform to conduct testing operations within said configured testing environment for said host computing platform; processing additional topology data to configure a different testing environment for a different specified host computing platform; formatting said test commands in a different syntax for said different specified host computing platform; and, dispatching said formatted test commands in said different syntax to said different specified host computing platform to conduct said testing operations within said configured testing environment for said different specified host computing platform. The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: 1) Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,287,190 (“Rosenman”) and 2) Claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rosenman and U.S.Patent No. 7,020,797 (“Patil”). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6-9? PRINCIPLES OF LAW In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art Appeal 2010-007683 Application 11/185,461 3 reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17- 18 (1966). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Rosenman fails to disclose “processing topology data to configure a testing environment for a specified host computing platform,” as recited in claim 6 (App. Br. 7). However, as the Examiner points out, Rosenman discloses data1 that is used to configure a test environment for a host.2 (Ans. 8; Rosenman, col. 6, ll. 62-63). In 1 E.g., “the JAD file” (col. 6, l. 62) that specifies the “location of the corresponding JAR file on the server 22” (col. 7, ll. 7-8). 2 E.g., “the JAD file for a given MIDlet may specify that the device must support MIDP version 2.0” (col. 6, l. 67 – col. 7, l. 2); “[o]nce the JAR file for the relevant portion of the test bundle 52 is downloaded to one of the devices 24 . . . the device is ready to run the tests of the test bundle 52” (col. 7, ll. 11-14). Appeal 2010-007683 Application 11/185,461 4 addition, the data contains “environment settings and some environment demands,” which the Examiner finds could reasonably be considered as a set of configuration parameters for one or more specific machine platform types. (Id.). Appellants have not sufficiently demonstrated a difference between data containing environment settings used to configure a testing environment as disclosed by Rosenman and “topology data” as recited in claim 6. Appellants argue that “topology data” as recited in claim 6 must include “configuration parameters” as disclosed in the Specification (App. Br. 6, citing Specification at ¶ [0015]). Even assuming Appellants’ contention to be correct that topology data as claimed must include configuration parameters, Appellant has not demonstrated a difference between the configuration parameters as disclosed in the Specification and the “environment settings and some environment demands” as disclosed by Rosenman. Nor do we identify any differences since both “topology data” as claimed (or, according to Appellants, “configuration parameters” as disclosed in the Specification) and the environment settings/demands disclosed by Rosenman appear to be used to configure a testing environment. (Rosenman, col. 6, ll. 62-63). Appellants do not provide additional arguments in support of dependent claims 7-9 or arguments with respect to Patil. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6-9. Appeal 2010-007683 Application 11/185,461 5 SUMMARY We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Rosenman and claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rosenman and Patil. AFFIRMED cu