Ex Parte Van Liebergen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 2016

12696277 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/696,277 01129/2010 Martijn Van Liebergen 56436 7590 07/05/2016 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. 82259948 9574 EXAMINER LIN, HUI-WEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2197 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/05/2016 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 MAR TIJN VAN LIEBERG EN Appeal2015-000838 Application 12/696,277 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-15, all the pending claims in the present application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to generating an enterprise application. See Abstract. Appeal2015-000838 Application 12/696,277 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer system (1 02) for generating an enterprise application (123), the computer system (102) comprising: a processor (112) adapted to execute stored instructions; and a memory device (122) that stores instructions for execution by the processor (112), the memory device (122) compnsmg: computer-implemented code adapted to receive a reference enterprise application (121) that comprises one or more projects, wherein the reference enterprise application (121) comprises a first executable software application; computer-implemented code adapted to receive a configuration ( 124) that identifies a subset of the projects to be included in the enterprise application (123); and computer-implemented code adapted to generate the enterprise application (123) based on the reference enterprise application (121) and the configuration (124), wherein the generated enterprise application (123) comprises a second executable software application. Appellant appeals the following rejections: RI. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lau (US 2006/0225028 Al, Oct. 5, 2006), Gensel (US 2003/0200532 Al, Oct. 23, 2003), and Kannan (US 2010/0122238 Al, May 13, 2010) (see Final Act. 8-14); and R2. Claims 3-8, 10-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lau, Gensel, and Kannan in combination with various other prior art (see id. at 14--21 ). 2 Appeal2015-000838 Application 12/696,277 ANALYSIS Claims 1-15 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined cited prior art teaches or suggests a reference enterprise application that comprises one or more projects, wherein the reference enterprise application comprises a first executable software application, as set forth in claim 1? Appellant contends that "Lau does not disclose receiving a reference enterprise application including one or more projects or receiving a configuration identifying the projects ... nor does Lau disclose that these legacy applications come from a reference enterprise application" (App. Br. 8). Appellant further contends that "Gensel does not disclose generating an enterprise application from a subset of projects from a reference application" (id. at 9). Additionally, Appellant contends that "Kannan does not disclose receiving a reference enterprise application. Rather, Kannan describes obtaining a design diagram or a class diagram from a previous software project. ... However, neither is actually software and, as such, neither is a reference enterprise application" (id. at 10). Here, we find that Appellant's arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. According to In re Keller: The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of 3 Appeal2015-000838 Application 12/696,277 the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. (Citations omitted). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). This reasoning is applicable here because Appellant attacks Lau and Gensel for not illustrating "a reference enterprise application" and attacks Kannan for not illustrating "a first executable software application" (see App. Br. 8-10). However, the Examiner findings are directed to other references than those argued by Appellant. In other words, Appellant fails to argue the specific findings made by the Examiner. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. For example, the Examiner finds that Kannan illustrates "a reference enterprise application that comprises one or more projects" (see Final Act. 10), not merely Lau and/or Gensel. Furthermore, the Examiner uses Gensel to illustrate "a first executable software application" (see id. at 12), not Kannan as proffered by Appellant. In other words, Appellant's contentions are unavailing because they amount to allegations that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, rather than disputing what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner makes the following findings (see Final Act. 8-13): Lau discloses a "system [ ] for managing development of an enterprise application" (see i-fi-122-23) and that the enterprise application "can comprise both legacy applications ... legacy data stores ... as well as new applications" (see i128). Lau further discloses that the enterprise application includes various components such as "a project that comprises a set of 4 Appeal2015-000838 Application 12/696,277 source code files" (see i1 31 ). Kannan discloses "reusing the functional artifacts in the new software project" (see i-f 5; see also i-f 73) and that"[ s ]eed classes become the starting point for traversing the dependency graph" (see f 117). Gensel discloses that "[t]he project file 120 can also hold information including, but not limited to, a core file 160 to associated with the computer executable project" (see i-f 41; see also i-f 67). We find that Appellant's contentions supra are unpersuasive because Appellant fails to dispute what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding Appellant's contention that "Lau does not describe a configuration, but rather a user selecting a component for inclusion" (App. Br. 13), we direct Appellant's attention to their Specification which states: "Additionally, the configuration may specify optional components that may be added to the generated application" (see Spec. i-f 21 ). In other words, Lau's selection of a component for inclusion in the enterprise application (i.e., receiving a configuration) is consistent with Appellant's Specification. Thus, we find unavailing Appellant's contention that "the configuration described and recited by the current application specifies criteria for determining whether to include each of the projects of the reference application in the generated application" (see App. Br. 12) (emphasis added) because paragraph [0021] of Appellant's Specification is not limited to just "specifying a criteria" but also includes adding components. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellant's arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 9 and 13 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant's 5 Appeal2015-000838 Application 12/696,277 do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims (see App. Br. 6- 19). We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-15. DECISION We affirm the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejections. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6