Ex Parte Meggison et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2019

13523549 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/523,549 06/14/2012
93379 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
02/28/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Wayne Meggison SR.
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.
648.0107 6097
EXAMINER
CHEN,ZHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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):
sarah@setterroche.com
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD WAYNE MEGGISON, SR. and
PAUL A. GWALTNEY
Appeal2017-003434
Application 13/523,549 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-003434
Application 13/523,549
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
Appellants describe the invention as follows:
Embodiments disclosed herein provide systems, methods, and
software for dynamically managing applications. In particular,
automatic application removal or uninstallation from a
computing device can occur upon satisfaction of a particular
condition or conditions. In one example, a method implemented
on a computing device calls for receiving a condition, the
occurrence of which indicates when an application installed on
the computing device should be uninstalled. An element in an
operating system of the computing device is monitored to
determine whether the condition is satisfied and, if the condition
is satisfied, uninstall the application from the computing device.
Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having
instructions stored thereon for operating a computing device,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the computing
device, direct the computing device to:
receive a condition included with an application at a time
that the application is installed by an entity onto the computing
device, the occurrence of which indicates when the application
installed on the computing device should be automatically
uninstalled;
place the application into a designated area of a graphical
user interface for an operating system of the computing device,
wherein the condition applies to all applications placed in the
designated area;
after receipt of the condition, monitor an element in the
operating system of the computing device to determine whether
the condition is satisfied; and
2
Appeal2017-003434
Application 13/523,549
upon determining that the condition is satisfied, uninstall
the application from the computing device without intervention
by a user of the computing device.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Yamada (US 2008/0155531 Al, June 26, 2008) and
Sadowsky (US 6,981,252 Bl, Dec. 27, 2005), Barfield (US 2004/0015956
Al, Jan. 22, 2004), and Chaudhri (US 2006/0156250 Al, July 13, 2006).
Final Act. 2-14.
2. Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over
Yamada, Sadowsky, Barfield, Chaudhri, and Deschenes (US 2010/0077475
Al, Mar. 25, 2010). Final Act. 14--16.
3. Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over
Yamada, Sadowsky, Barfield, Chaudhri, and Tripp (US 2008/0127173 Al,
May 29, 2008). Final Act. 16-18.
4. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over
Yamada, Sadowsky, Barfield, Chaudhri, and Lee (US 2012/0174007 Al,
July 5, 2012). Final Act. 18-20.
5. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over
Yamada, Sadowsky, Barfield, Chaudhri, and Timmins (US 2004/0058710
Al, Mar. 25, 2004). Final Act. 20-22.
6. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Yamada, Sadowsky, Barfield, Chaudhri, and Takagi (US 2007/0101345 Al,
May 3, 2007). Final Act. 22-24.
3
Appeal2017-003434
Application 13/523,549
7. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over
Yamada, Sadowsky, Barfield, Chaudhri, and Koyama (US 2005/0034119
Al, Feb. 10, 2005). Final Act. 24--26.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner relies on the combination of Yamada, Sadowsky,
Barfield, and Chaudhri to teach the limitations of claim 1 and, in particular,
relies on Chaudhri as teaching the limitation of "plac[ing] the application
into a designated area of a graphical user interface for an operating system of
the computing device, wherein the condition applies to all applications
placed in the designated area." Final Act. 5---6 ( emphasis removed) ( citing
Chaudhri ,r 103).
Appellants argue, Barfield teaches away from Chaudhri and one of
ordinary skill would not have been motivated to incorporate Chaudhri into
the teachings of Barfield. App. Br. 6. For example, Appellants argue
"Chaudhri merely teaches a manner in which a user can manually instruct a
system to remove an item of software from their machine." App. Br. 6
( arguing that dragging of a widget to the trash icon is a manual instruction
for the widget to be removed) ( emphasis removed). In contrast, Appellants
argue, "the entire purpose of Barfield is to prevent a user from having to
manually track and uninstall software applications." App. Br. 6 ( citing
Barfield ,r,r 7-9) ( emphasis removed). In other words, according to
Appellants, Chaudhri teaches manual uninstallation of software while
Barfield seeks to avoid the disadvantages of manual uninstallation of
software. Thus, Appellants argue, the two references would not have been
combined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
4
Appeal2017-003434
Application 13/523,549
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner
articulates a reason with rational underpinning for combining Chaudhri with
Yamada, Sadowsky, and Barfield stemming from Chaudhri itself and has
thus provided sufficient reasoning for the rejection. Final Act. 6 ( citing
Chaudhri ,r 21) ( explaining that "[ t ]he modification would be obvious
because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have
uninstallations based on position of the software on the graphical user
interface for easy access.").
We disagree with Appellants' characterization that the act of dragging
a widget to a trash icon is a manual act of uninstalling software akin to the
kind of manual uninstallation that Barfield seeks to avoid. When discussing
the disadvantages of manual uninstallation of trial software, Barfield focuses
on the user having to manage and save potential libraries or files that may be
overwritten by the trial software and to manually have to restore the libraries
and files when the software is uninstalled. See Barfield ,r 7. None of these
disadvantages appear in the cited portions of Chaudhri's discussion
regarding dragging a widget to a trash icon. Thus, the dragging act in
Chaudhri cannot be characterized as the manual act of installation or
uninstallation of software. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the act
of dragging a widget to the trash icon merely indicates to the system to
uninstall the widget. See Ans. 16. The dragging act leads to the automatic
uninstallation of the widget rather than manual uninstallation.
As the aforementioned contentions were the basis of Appellants'
arguments for all appealed claims, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-20.
5
Appeal2017-003434
Application 13/523,549
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6