VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 9, 2021

2020003089 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2021)

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. 15/878,708 01/24/2018 Karthikeyan Ramasamy D660 9932 152606 7590 09/09/2021 Olympic Patent Works PLLC 4979 Admiral Street Gig Harbor, WA 98332 EXAMINER LUU, BINH K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/09/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KARTHIKEYAN RAMASAMY Appeal 2020-003089 Application 15/878,708 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies VMWARE, INC. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003089 Application 15/878,708 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to software development and in particular “an automated-application-release-management system that organizes and manages the application-development and application-release processes to allow for continuous application development and release.” Spec. ¶ 3. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. An automated-application-release-management subsystem within a cloud-computing facility having multiple servers, data- storage devices, and one or more internal networks, the automated-application-release-management subsystem comprising: a dashboard user interface; an automated-application-release-management controller; an interface to a workflow-execution engine within the cloud-computing facility; an artifact-storage-and-management subsystem; and code-change ratings that are generated, stored, and shared during code-change processing by the automated-application- release-management subsystem. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 and 7–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Anderson (US 8,856,725 B1; Oct. 7, 2014). Final Act. 2–10. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Anderson and Atlassian SDK Developer, REST plugin module (“Atlassian”). Final Act. 10–12. Appeal 2020-003089 Application 15/878,708 3 ANALYSIS We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not addressed the claim limitations in their entirety. For example, claim 1 recites “a dashboard user interface.” The Examiner relies on Anderson disclosing an “input/output controller” that can “provide output to a display device, such as a computer monitor.” Ans. 23 (quoting Anderson 13:63–66) (emphasis omitted). However, we agree with Appellant that although such hardware components might be used in physically displaying something to the user, the “dashboard user interface” itself generally will come from software, not hardware, and the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Anderson regarding using the input/output controller or display to show a “dashboard user interface.” Reply Br. 11–14; Appeal Br. 18–19. As the Federal Circuit has said, “[w]e must give meaning to all the words in [the] claims.” Exxon Chem. Pats., Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner has not shown how Anderson discloses all limitations in claim 1. Similarly, claim 1 further recites “an automated-application-release- management controller.” The Examiner relies on Anderson disclosing “CPUs 14,” which are “standard programmable processors that perform arithmetic and logical operations necessary for the operation of the computer 12.” Ans. 23 (citing Anderson 11:58–63) (emphasis omitted). Although in certain contexts a CPU alone might teach a “controller,” the Examiner has not addressed the remaining claim language of “automated-application- release-management.” Reply Br. 14–17; Appeal Br. 19–21. For independent claims 15 and 20, the Examiner states those claims are rejected “for the same reasons as claims 1, 3–4, 7–8, and 11–12.” Final Appeal 2020-003089 Application 15/878,708 4 Act. 10. Although the wording in those claims differs from claim 1, the same general problem applies. See Appeal Br. 23 (discussing claims 7, 8, 11, and 12, which recite limitations similar to claims 15 and 20). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 20, and their dependent claims 2–4, 7–14, and 16–19. The Examiner does not rely on obviousness to cure the deficiencies discussed above for the anticipation rejection. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 6. OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 7–20 102 Anderson 1–4, 7–20 5, 6 103 Anderson, Atlassian 5, 6 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED