Ex Parte Kraus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 2016

13047574 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/047,574 03/14/2011 Moshe Eran Kraus 56436 7590 03/17/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82581005 7113 EXAMINER PATEL, KAMIN! B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2114 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MOSHE ERAN KRAUS, DROR SCHWARTZ, ITHAI LEVI, and AMIR KESSNER Appeal2014-003020 Application 13/047,574 Technology Center 2100 Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JOHN F. HORVATH, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest are Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-003020 Application 13/047,574 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to a script that specifies a script action and an expected reaction in response to the script action. When one of the script actions is executed, a failure is detected indicating that the expected reaction did not occur. In response to the failure, a fall back action is executed. Abstract. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A process comprising: in the course of executing a script specifying an action and a respective expected reaction, executing by an automation engine running on a computer, said script action; detecting, by said automation engine, a failure of said script action to achieve said expected reaction; and in response to the detection, generating and executing, by said automation engine, a fallback action corresponding to said script action. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1--4 and 6-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Butin (US 2010/0205529, Al published Aug. 12, 2010).2 2 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 4, 7, 9, 12, and 15. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Separate patentability is also not argued for claims 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14. Rather, Appellants merely reference and repeat arguments for one or more of claims 1, 2, 3, and 6. See App. Br. 12, 13, and 14. Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, and 6. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 2 Appeal2014-003020 Application 13/047,574 2. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Butin and Le Roy (US 2008/0271045, Al published Oct. 30, 2008). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and 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 reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We emphasize the following. I. Claim 1 Appellants argue that the "fallback" action in Butin is generated before the script is executed and before the failure of the script action is detected, and, therefore, "it cannot have been generated 'in response to the detection' as required by Claim 1." App. Br. 8-9. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner's finds that the term "generating" is a broad term that includes retrieving an action in response to a failure. Ans. 13. Under this interpretation, the Examiner finds Butin teaches generating a fallback action in paragraph 124, which describes a defined fallback action being performed when a script action fails to complete. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 13. We agree. The Examiner's interpretation is supported by Appellants' Specification, which defines "generating" as "encompass[ing] 'selecting' as a special case." Spec. i-f 30. Under this definition, generating a fallback action includes 3 Appeal2014-003020 Application 13/047,574 selecting an already existing fallback action as disclosed by Butin. (Butin iT 124). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. II. Claim 2 Appellants argue Butin does not disclose "recording a user's interaction with a website to yield a recording representing a user action and a website reaction," or "generating said script from said recording, said expected reaction being based on said website reaction," as recited in claim 2. In particular, Appellants argue paragraphs 18, 19, 21, and 22 ofButin does not even mention a website. App. Br. 9. Moreover, Appellants argue paragraph 45 of Butin, which does mention the term website, does not define what a website is. Reply Br. 10. Finally, Appellants argue paragraph 49 of Butin which discuss hyperlinks, also does not disclose the disputed limitation because the hyperlinks are used as components that could be used to "launch and/or operate the recording and/or the playback of guide scripts. Butin does not disclose recording or playing back a user's interaction with a toolbar, link, or hyperlink .... " Reply Br. 11-12. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. We agree with the Examiner's findings that Butin discloses "recording a user's interaction with a website to yield a recording representing a user action and a website reaction." Id. Although we do not rely on the following, we add that paragraph 44 of Butin states that "[t]he term 'application' or 'Web application' as used herein include, for example, ... a Web-based or Internet-based application (e.g., implemented and/or running using a Web browser) .... " One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood references to recording user interaction with an application, such as 4 Appeal2014-003020 Application 13/047,574 disclosed in paragraph 124 of Butin, as including interactions with a website. See, e.g., Butin i-fi-1 45 and 49 (indicating a "toolbar" can be used "to launch and/or operate the recording and/or the playback of guidance script(s)," where the term "toolbar" includes interface components such as hyperlinks, and hyperlinks are used to access web-pages through the Internet). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2. III. Claim 3 Claim 3 recites "in response to the detection of the failure of said fallback action, generating and executing a second fall back action." The Examiner finds Butin discloses this limitation is "taught by Butin from paragraphs [0124]-[0132], and also [0146], where ifthe guidance script 151 keeps failing after replayed and automatic suspension of the script may be performed. Script failed after replayed is interpreted as fallback failure as claimed." Ans. 15-16. Appellants argue the paragraphs of Butin relied upon by the Examiner "disclose that a script action may fail, and while [0124] teaches the definition of a fallback action in case a script action fails, none of these paragraphs disclose detecting a failure of a fall back action." App. Br. 10. Regarding paragraph 146, Appellants argue "the replays disclosed at Butin [O 146] are not fall back actions but simply multiple instances of script execution by 'different users."' Reply Br. 12-13. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Butin discloses that the script recorder may define "one or more" fallback actions that will be performed when a prior action fails. Butin i-f 124. Butin's disclosure, therefore, includes a scenario where the prior failed action is a fallback 5 Appeal2014-003020 Application 13/047,574 action, and a second fallback action may be performed in response to such failure. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. IV. Claim 6 Claim 6 recites "a script executer for executing said script action and, in the event said script action fails to achieve the expected reaction, generating and executing a fall back action to achieve the expected reaction." The Examiner finds Butin discloses this limitation in part at paragraph 124. Final Act. 5. Appellants argue "Butin [0124] discloses that it is Butin's script recorder 153 that allows the fallback action to be defined. Butin's script recorder 153 is not disclosed to be a script executer or to execute a script." App. Br. 11. We disagree with Appellants for largely the same reasons explained above regarding claim 1. Appellants' Specification defines "generating" a fallback action as including selecting an existing fallback action. Spec. i-f 30. Thus, when the script player selects a defined fallback action to be performed when a script action fails, it generates the fallback action. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6. V. Claim 5 Appellants present the same argument for claim 5 as they do for claim 1. Specifically, Appellants argue "[t]he proposed combination of Butin and Le Roy does not meet the fall back limitation of Claim 1 because the generation of the fallback action is not 'in response to' detection of the failure." App. Br. 14. 6 Appeal2014-003020 Application 13/047,574 For the reasons explained above regarding claim 1, we disagree that Butin fails to meet the fallback limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7