Ex Parte FAN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

13468128 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

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