Ex Parte Travostino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 2017

12416070 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/416,070 03/31/2009 Franco Travostino 2043.630US1 3731 49845 7590 03/28/2017 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER SHIU, HO T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2017 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): USPTO@SLWIP.COM SLW @blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANCO TRAVOSTINO, JOHN SOVEREIGN, ALEXANDER VUL, and HAL JESPERSEN Appeal 2016-004142 Application 12/416,0701 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, NABEEL U. KHAN, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1,3,4, 6—11, 13—17, 19—23, and 25—27, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify eBay Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-004142 Application 12/416,070 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method of integrating an internal cloud infrastructure with legacy enterprise systems. Spec. 2. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A system architecture to provide cloud computing in an existing enterprise, the system architecture comprising: an internal cloud structure to operate as a portion of the existing enterprise, the internal cloud structure configured to be communicatively coupled to one or more third-party cloud computing structures, the one or more third-party cloud computing structures not being a part of the existing enterprise; a service communications interface to provide a communications interface between a plurality of business units in the existing enterprise and the internal cloud structure; and an infrastructure communications interface comprised of a plurality of application programming interfaces to communicatively couple the internal cloud structure to a pre existing plurality of enterprise resources of the existing enterprise. Examiner’s Rejection and References Claims 1, 3, 4, 6—11, 13—17, 19—23, and 25—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Hill (US 2010/0027552 Al; Feb. 4, 2010) which claims priority to Provisional Application 61/074027 (“Hill’s provisional application”). 2 Appeal 2016-004142 Application 12/416,070 ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Hill’s provisional application upon which the Examiner relies, “only discusses cloud infrastructures in a highly- generalized sense.” App. Br. 10. Because of this, according to the Appellants, the Examiner’s findings are based upon “considerable speculation about what is actually disclosed by Hill.” App. Br. 11; see also App. Br. 9. Appellants argue that the generalized discussion contained in Hill’s provisional application means that Hill is silent on many elements of the claims. App. Br. 10. Appellants focus on two such claim elements. First, Appellants argue “Hill is actually silent on . . . providing cloud computing in an existing enterprise including an internal cloud coupled to external third-party clouds.” App. Br. 10. Second, Appellants argue “the Examiner has failed to provide a prima facie argument that Hill anticipates a service communications interface between the plurality of business units in the existing enterprise and the internal cloud structure.” App. Br. 12. We analyze these arguments serially. A. Whether Hill’s Provisional Application Discloses an Internal Cloud Structure Coupled to External Third-Party Cloud Structures We agree with the Examiner that Hill’s provisional application discloses an “internal cloud structure configured to be communicatively coupled to one or more third-party cloud computing structures, the one or more third-party cloud computing structures not being a part of the existing enterprise,” as recited in claim 1. In particular, Hill’s provisional application 3 Appeal 2016-004142 Application 12/416,070 at page 102 depicts a figure that shows a local cloud interfacing with commercial clouds though a service bus as depicted below. Ans. 6—7 (citing Hill’s provisional application, 10). Cloud Hypervisor and Cloud Gateway Interaction 5 :: *. '%/Aa ?jrt $ 'Stops#agy ^ ^ Front-ends ,s% S A j.Ci»«S»»?¥«***»• EC2 >7 L■ y’-■•v y Sungard ye backspace \ ■ SaciewJ | Vert