Ex Parte FAN et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 201913468128 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/468, 128 05/10/2012 SI BIN FAN 73109 7590 05/02/2019 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC 20283 State Road 7 Ste. 300 Boca Raton, FL 33498 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. CN920110056US1_8134-0159 8912 EXAMINER WHEATON, BRADFORD F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2193 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2019 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): ibmptomail@iplawpro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SI BIN FAN, JINF AN SHAW, HONG LIANG HAN, and LIAN PING ZHANG 1 Appeal2018-008012 Application 13/468, 128 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. RAEVSKY, 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 1-25, all the pending claims in the present application (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants name IBM Corporation as the real party in interest (App. Br. 1 ). 1 Appeal2018-008012 Application 13/468, 128 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention generally relates to updating dependency information for an artifact, such as a computer program source file, program description document, or other data. See Abstract; Spec. ,r 5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus comprising: an information-generating unit, comprising program instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors, generates Impact Analysis (IA) data using the dependencies corresponding to an artifact, wherein the impact analysis data includes data for consequences that a code revision on one artifact has on other artifacts; a version-generating unit, comprising program instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors, in response to the generation of the IA data, generates for the IA data version information corresponding to that of the artifact; an information-updating unit, comprising program instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors, in response to the update of the artifact, update the IA data corresponding to the artifact; a version-updating unit, comprising program instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors, in response to the update of the IA data, assigns new version information to the updated IA data, such that the new version information corresponds to the version information of the updated artifact; and a version-management unit, comprising program instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more 2 Appeal2018-008012 Application 13/468, 128 processors manages stores and manages a plurality of versions of the IA data. App. Br. 21-22 (Claims Appendix). Appellants appeal the following rejections: Claims 1, 3-5, 21, and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bonanno et al. (US 2010/0050156 Al, pub. Feb. 25, 2010) and Zawadzki (US 8,037,453 Bl, iss. Oct. 11, 2011). Final Act. 3. Claims 2, 6, and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bonanno, Zawadzki, and Cotner et al. (US 6,931,630 B 1, iss. Aug. 16, 2005). Id. at 6. Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bonanno, Zawadzki, and Clemm et al. (US 2007/01437441 Al, pub. June 21, 2007). Id. at 8. Claims 12-16 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bonanno, Zawadzki, Cotner, and Clemm. Id. at 11. Claims 8-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bonanno, Zawadzki, Cotner, and Gonzalez et al. (US 2012/0180024 Al, pub. July 12, 2012). Id. at 15. Claims 17-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bonanno, Zawadzki, Cotner, Clemm, and Gonzalez. Id. at 18. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bonanno, Zawadzki, and Gonzalez. Id. at 20. 3 Appeal2018-008012 Application 13/468, 128 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Rejections under§ 103 of Claims 1, 2, and 5-25 Appellants initially contend Bonanno and Zawadzki fail to teach or suggest claim 1 's "generates for the IA data version information corresponding to that of the artifact." App. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants contend that "version" information "described in paragraphs [0023] and [0024]" of Bonanno refer to specific modules, "not a version of the impact analysis (IA) data, as claimed." Id. at 10. Appellants also contend, "while 'version 1.3' indicates an update has been applied to the module, the claimed invention refers to applying new version information to the updated IA data." Id. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bonnano discloses "table information tied to the creation/generation [of] IA data/dependency information," and that this table information "shows the artifact tied to specific dependency and version information." Final Act. 3 ( citing Bonanno ,r,r 23-24). Bonanno's tables represent a file "ivy.xml" and include a version number ("version 1.3") of the "ivy-module," as well as versions of dependencies (e.g., ""). Bonnano ,r 23. Bonanno further describes "ivy.xml" as a "dependency file[]" that "may define its set of dependencies." Id. ,r 12. As 4 Appeal2018-008012 Application 13/468, 128 such, Appellants do not persuade us that Bonnano fails to teach or suggest the disclosed limitation. 2 Appellants next contend that the cited references fail to teach or suggest claim 1 's "assigns new version information to the updated IA [Impact Analysis] data." App. Br. 9-12. In particular, Appellants contend "Zawadzki ... recognizes that ... dependency information can be dynamically updated. However, like Bonanno, Zawadzki also fails to teach version information for the impact analysis (IA) data ( e.g., the dependency data). Instead, the version information is for the modules." Id. at 11. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Zawadzki "shows the update of dependency and version information tied to artifacts such that when change update is applied to the artifact the version and dependency information is dynamically updated." Final Act. 5. Specifically, the Examiner cites to Zawadzki' s disclosure of a "module A ... dependent on the latest build or version of module B." Zawadzki 27:28-29. Zawadzki explains, "[a]s additional versions of module B are created, the dependency of module A is dynamically updated, allowing the build management system 102 to track dependencies across the multiple changes in both module A and module B." Id. at 27:30-33. Because Zawadzki teaches the updating allows the build management system to track dependencies across the multiple changes in both modules A and B, Zawadzki teaches or suggests assigning new version 2 Significantly, the Examiner also finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that for a nearly identical limitation in claim 12, Zawadzki discloses the limitation. See Final Act. 11. Appellants' failure to address the Examiner's finding constitutes waiver that also affects our analysis of claim 1. See Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075 (The Board "reviews ... rejection[s] for error based upon the issues identified by appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon," and treats arguments not made as waived.). 5 Appeal2018-008012 Application 13/468, 128 information to the dependency information. Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us that Zawadzki fails to teach or suggest the disclosed limitation. 3 Finally, Appellants contend Bonanno and Zawadzki fail to teach or suggest claim 1 's "in response to the generation of the IA data, generates for the IA data version information corresponding to that of the artifact." App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4--5 (emphasis added). Appellants contend the "in response to" phrase in the above-quoted limitation requires "the IA data is first generated followed by the generation of the version information." App. Br. 12. Appellants then contend "no such teaching is found in Bonnano" because in the "two tables" of Bonanno, "there is no indication that the alleged 'version information' is created in response to the generation of this alleged IA data. Rather, the alleged 'version information' is already part of the IA data as the IA data is created." Id. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Bonanno' s tables show "information tied to the creation/generation [of] IA data/dependency informationl which] shows the artifact tied to specific dependency and version information." Final Act. 3 ( citing Bonanno ,r,r 23-24). As the Examiner explains, "Bonanno ... show[ s] the associated dependency information with the version information of the artifact/module and can be viewed as the equivalent version information." Ans. 4. Accordingly, 3 The Examiner also finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that for a nearly identical limitation in claim 12, Bonanno discloses the limitation. See Final Act. 11-12. Appellants' failure to address the Examiner's finding again constitutes waiver that also affects our analysis of claim 1. 6 Appeal2018-008012 Application 13/468, 128 Appellants do not persuade us that Zawadzki fails to teach or suggest the disclosed limitation. 4 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants' arguments regarding the rejection of independent claims 12, 21 5, and 24 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims except claims 3 and 4, which we address separately below. See App. Br. 13-18. We therefore also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 5-25. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Rejections under§ 103 of Claims 3 and 4 Appellants contend Bonanno and Zawadzki fail to teach or suggest claim 3 's "generates version information for the IA data according to the creation manner of the artifact version information." App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants contend, without supporting reasoning, that "[n]one of the Examiner's cited passages within Bonnano or Zawadzki refer to the manner in which the artifact version information is created." Id. This assertion does not constitute an argument on the merits, because "[a] statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim." 37 C.F.R. 4 The Examiner also finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that for a nearly identical limitation in claim 12, Zawadzki discloses the limitation. See Final Act. 11. Appellants' failure to address the Examiner's finding again constitutes waiver that also affects our analysis of claim 1. 5 We also note claim 21 includes a typographical error, referring to "TA data" instead of "IA data." 7 Appeal2018-008012 Application 13/468, 128 § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. Appellants contend Bonanno and Zawadzki fail to teach or suggest claim 4' s "generates version information for the IA data in a different way than that of the creation of the artifact version information." App. Br. 13- 14. Appellants arguments solely address Zawadzki. Id. at 13-14. However, the Examiner relies on both Bonanno and Zawadzki for this claim limitation. Final Act. 6 (citing "Bonanno [0023] lines 1-3 and table 1 and Zawadzki Col. 21 lines 30-46 and Col. 27 lines 25-33 and Col. 29 lines 11-20"). Because Appellants' arguments do not fully address the Examiner's rejection, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 1-25. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation