Ex Parte Nielsen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 2018

13839815 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/839,815 03/15/2013 69316 7590 11/01/2018 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 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. 338870-US-NP 8544 EXAMINER WEI,ZENGPU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2197 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2018 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): usdocket@microsoft.com chriochs@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HENRIK FRYSTYK NIELSEN, CHEN EGOZI, and JASON M. ALLOR Appeal2017-005877 Application 13/839,815 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-3 and 8-10. 2 App. Br., Title Page. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 3 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 15-20 stand as ALLOWED and Claims 4--7 and 11-14 recite allowable subject matter, but are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim. Final Act. 2. 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 5, 2016, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed February 18, 2017, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 20, 2016, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed May 5, 2016, "Final Appeal2017-005877 Application 13/839,815 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention The claims relate to a method of source control of custom code in a backend-as-a-service module. See Abstract. Claims 1 and 8 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: receiving custom code from a user for incorporation into a backend-as-a-service module that is configured to provide a backend service to a corresponding application; and providing source control of the custom code for the user without providing source control of host code for the user, the host code defining a runtime that is hosted by the backend-as-a-service module, the host code configured to load the custom code into the runtime while the runtime is running to provide custom backend features that are defined by the custom code to the corresponding application. Schmidt, et al., Y ousouf, et al., Bychkov, et al., References and Rejections US 2008/0163266 Al US 2013/0346945 Al US 8,234,620 B 1 The claims stand rejected as follows: Pub. July 3, 2008 Filed June 22, 2012 Pub. July 31, 2012 Act."), and the Amended Specification (filed January 9, 2015, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2017-005877 Application 13/839,815 1. Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bychkov and Y ousouf. Final Act. 3-7. 2. Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bychkov, Yousouf, and Schmidt. Final Act. 7-9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-3 and 5-20 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-11. CLAIMS 1, 2, 8, AND 9: OBVIOUSNESS OVER BYCHKOV ANDY OUSOUF Appellants contend the combination of Bychkov and Y ousouf fails to teach or suggest "receiving custom code from a user [to whom source control of the custom code is provided] for incorporation into a backend-as- a-service [BaaS] module that is configured to provide a backend service to a corresponding application," as recited by independent claim 1. To teach the claimed "receiving custom code from a user," the Examiner cites Bychkov as disclosing: "More specifically, in one or more embodiments of the invention, a software developer may develop a software program using an IDE connected to the computing resource broker. The computing resource broker operates as a backend to the IDE to allow the software developer to use one or more computing resources connected to the computing resource broker during the process of developing the software program" for incorporation into a backend-as-a-service module that is configured to provide a backend service to a corresponding application. 3 Appeal2017-005877 Application 13/839,815 Final Act. 3 (citing Bychkov, col. 2, 11. 48-55). To teach the claimed "providing source control of the custom code for the user without providing source control of host code for the user," the Examiner cites Bychkov as disclosing: More specifically, the project repository service provides project management services to permit a developer using an IDE to organize and develop software programs as projects in the project repository. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Bychkov, col. 7, 11. 49-53). Appellants contend the Examiner improperly maps the disclosure of Bychkov onto the claims. App. Br. 6-32. Appellants argue the Examiner relies on "the software program developed using the IDE in Bychkov" to correspond to the custom code mentioned in Appellants' claim 1. Id., at 7 (citing Final Act. 9). Appellants argue the Examiner's logic would require that the software program described by Bychkov is received from a user for incorporation into the computing resource broker and/or the project repository that is configured to provide a backend service to the IDE. Id. Appellants contend Bychkov fails to teach either that the project repository or the computing resource broker or any combination functions as a BaaS. Id. at 7-8. The Examiner finds "operations such as 'compile, build, execute in debug mode" correspond to backend services." Ans. 3 (citing Bychkov, col. 3, 1. 60 - col. 4, 1. 8). The Examiner further finds to provide such services, "the backend-as-a-service module such as a debugger loads the program into the computing resource/debugger so that debugging service is performed on it." Id. at 4 ( citing Bychkov, col. 8, 11. 38-50). 4 Appeal2017-005877 Application 13/839,815 Appellants contend a debugger is not the same as a BaaS. We agree with Appellants. Independent Claims 1 and 8 recite "a backend-as-a-service module." Backend-as-a-Service (BaaS), or equivalently Mobile Backend as a Service (MBaaS) is a term of art in the cloud computing industry. 4 See Spec. ,r,r 1, 2, and 51. Bychkov discloses a "compilation service includes functionality for providing compile, build, and debug services to an IDE." Bychkov, col. 8, 11. 38-39 (cited by the Examiner). Bychkov fails to disclose a BaaS/MBaaS. Moreover, the Record fails to demonstrate that a "compilation service" is equivalent to a BaaS. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9. CLAIMS 3 AND 10: OBVIOUSNESS OVERBYCHKOV, YOUSOUF, AND SCHMIDT The Examiner does not apply Schmidt to the disputed limitations discussed above. See Ans. 2-5. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 3 and 10. 4 Backend as a service (BaaS) is a cloud computing service model that serves as the middleware that provides developers with ways to connect their Web and mobile applications to cloud services via application programming interfaces (API) and software developers' kits (SDK). Compared to other service models in the cloud computing environment, BaaS is rather new and there is a limited number of available providers. Backend as a service is also known as mobile backend as a service. Technopedia, https://www.techopedia.com/definition/29428/backend-as-a-service-baas. 5 Appeal2017-005877 Application 13/839,815 DECISION The rejections of Claims 1-3 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) are REVERSED. REVERSED 6