Ex Parte Schimpf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2016

13429938 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/429,938 03/26/2012 Brian C. Schimpf
67046 7590 02/23/2016
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
10 ST. JAMES A VENUE
BOSTON, MA 02116-3889
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.
CAM920100037US2/00278 6752
EXAMINER
MILLS, PAUL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2016 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):
patentdocketing@hklaw.com
toni. sousa@hklaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN C. SCHIMPF, ARTHUR FRANCIS CROTTY,
SHAILAJA STHALEKAR GOLIKERI, and YUHONG YIN
Appeal2014-003128
Application 13/429,938
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SivIITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003128
Application 13/429,938
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-7, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
accessing, by a computing device, software development data
indicative of a development activity of a software development
project wherein the software development project includes a plurality
of phases;
inferring the plurality of phases based upon, at least in part, the
software development data;
setting, by the computing device, a component parameter of a
component of a software development platform, the component
parameter based upon, at least in part, an anticipated component
workload associated with the development activity; and
allocating, by the computing device, at least one system
resource for the component of the software development platform
based upon, at least in part, the component parameter and at least one
of the plurality of phases.
Prabhakar
Bonfiglio
Jackson
Prior Art
US 2007/0240161 Al
US 2007 /0283282 Al
US 2009/0199193 Al
2
Oct. 11, 2007
Dec. 6, 2007
Aug. 6, 2009
Appeal2014-003128
Application 13/429,938
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-7 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 8-21 of
copending application no. 12/955,303.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Prabhakar.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Phabhakar and Jackson.
Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Prabhakar and Bonfiglio.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and the Examiner's Answer as our own. We agree with the decisions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants do not provide arguments to rebut the obviousness-type
double patenting rejection, which we summarily affirm.
Claim 1 recites "inferring the plurality of phases based upon, at least
in part, the software development data." Appellants contend Prabhakar does
not disclose inferring the plurality of phases of a software development
project based upon software development data, because paragraphs 41 and
45 of Prabhakar discuss allocating jobs based on the stage of the request.
Br. 6. The Examiner finds Figures 1 and 2 and paragraphs 14, 18, 24, 31,
32, 34, and 41 of Prabhakar disclose the disputed limitation. Ans. 2-3.
3
Appeal2014-003128
Application 13/429,938
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the
Examiner's findings.
We agree with the Examiner that Prabhakar discloses the claimed
"inferring the plurality of phases based upon, at least in part, the software
development data." In particular, Figure 2 illustrates the relationships
between the stages in the application development lifecycle and
corresponding resource requirement characteristics. During the design and
development stage, less high-end computational resources are used; during
the testing stage, the demand for computational resources is usually highest;
and during the validation stage, demand for resources is heavy, but for a
short time. See Prabhakar i-fi-f 14--16, 24. During the development lifecycle,
resource usage modes exhibit these various characteristics, which are taken
into account to tune the system of Prabhakar to optimize resources
throughout the development lifecycle of an application. Prabhakar i-fi-f 18,
41, 45.
Appellants have not persuasively distinguished the relationship
between lifecycle stages and corresponding resource characteristics shown
in Figure 2, which are taken into account to optimize resources throughout
the development lifecycle as discussed in paragraphs 18, 41, and 45 of
Prabhakar, from "inferring the plurality of phases based upon, at least in
part, the software development data" as recited in claim 1.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 3, 5, and 7
which fall with claim 1. Appellants present arguments for the patentability
of claims 2, 4, and 6 (Br. 7) similar to those presented for claim 1, which we
4
Appeal2014-003128
Application 13/429,938
find unpersuasive. We sustain the rejections of claims 2, 4, and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-7 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5