CA, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2021

2020000651 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 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.
14/840,896 08/31/2015 Ian KELLY 122293-7238 2084
107592 7590 04/22/2021
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Broadcom)
600 Anton Boulevard
Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
EXAMINER
ABU ROUMI, MAHRAN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2021 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):
OCIPDocketing@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte IAN KELLY
____________

Appeal 2020-000651
Application 14/840,896
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BETH Z. SHAW, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CA, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000651
Application 14/840,896

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention sends feedback metrics indicating each use of a
published application programming interface (API) deployed to client
systems to a server for analysis. After determining that modifying a
published API affects only one client system and not the other based on the
feedback metrics, the modified API is published only to the affected client
system. See Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 21–23. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method, comprising:

publishing, by a server, an application program interface
(API);

deploying the published API and a helper agent to a first
and second client system, wherein the helper agent is
configured to:

bind to the published API on each client system; and

send a plurality of feedback metrics indicative of each
use of the published API on each client system to the server;

receiving, from the helper agent, the plurality of feedback
metrics about each client system;

analyzing, using a processor, the plurality of feedback
metrics about each client system; and

in response to determining that a modification to a
modified version of the published API affects only the first
client system and not the second client system based on the
feedback metrics, publishing the modified version to only the
first client system and not the second client system.

Appeal 2020-000651
Application 14/840,896

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Cinar (US 2013/0305222 A1; published Nov. 14,
2013) and Risbood (US 2017/0102931 A1; published Apr. 13, 2017). Final
Act. 4–7.2
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cinar, Risbood, and Dalal
(US 2015/0019954 A1; published Jan. 15, 2015). Final Act. 8–12.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Cinar, Risbood, Dalal, and Kannan (US 2009/0024994
A1; published Jan. 22, 2009). Final Act. 12–14.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER CINAR AND RISBOOD
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cinar
discloses deploying a published application programming interface (API)
and a helper agent to first and second client systems, where the helper agent
is configured to, among other things, send feedback metrics indicative of
each use of the published API on each client system to a server. Final Act.
4–5. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Cinar does not explicitly
teach publishing a modified version of the published API to only the first
client system responsive to determining that a modification to a modified
version of the API affects only the first client system, the Examiner
nonetheless concludes that this limitation would have been obvious over

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed January
8, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed June 10, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”); and (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 28, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-000651
Application 14/840,896

4
Cinar alone. See Final Act. 5–6. Additionally, the Examiner also cites
Risbood as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant argues that Cinar does not disclose sending feedback
metrics indicative of each use of a published API, let alone receiving and
analyzing those metrics as claimed. Appeal Br. 10–11. According to
Appellant, Cinar is focused on a development environment and test
workbench systems, and does not disclose gathering metrics on published
APIs, let alone each use of those APIs. Appeal Br. 10.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Cinar and Risbood collectively would have taught or suggested sending,
receiving, and analyzing feedback metrics indicative of each use of a
published API on each of two client systems to which the API was
deployed?

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on the secondary
reference to Risbood for teaching the last clause of claim 1 is undisputed, as
is the cited references’ combinability. Rather, as noted above, the dispute
regarding claim 1 turns solely on the Examiner’s reliance on Cinar for
teaching the recited sending, receiving, and analyzing steps. Therefore, we
confine our discussion to Cinar.
As explained in the Abstract, Cinar’s system remotely tests an
application on a device by connecting a development system to the device
Appeal 2020-000651
Application 14/840,896

5
via an agent that receives application data for the device and control signals
from the development system. The development system retrieves device
data collected from the agent. Cinar Abstract.
As shown in Cinar’s Figure 1, test workbench 102 is connected to
devices 112A–D via software-based “providers” 108 that connect to each
device’s respective agent 116A–D. See Cinar ¶¶ 20–21. The agents, among
other things, collect device data, such as device runtime parameters, device
temperature, CPU data, memory data, device configuration data, etc., that
the test workbench fetches. Cinar ¶ 22. As Cinar’s paragraph 26 explains,
an agent-side API can enable the test workbench to retrieve configuration
and device type data from connected devices. After deploying programming
instructions, the test workbench, through the agent API, retrieves screen
shots of the displays from one or more connected devices on which those
instructions were successfully deployed. Cinar ¶ 27.
As shown in Cinar’s Figure 2, after distributing compiled binaries and
executables to the target platform via the provider and associated agent, the
agent then collects performance data, log, screen shots, etc. from the target
platform, and this data is then sent back to the test workbench. Cinar ¶ 35.
In one embodiment, the test workbench displays the retrieved screen shot to
enable a user to determine whether the deployed application provided
desired results. Id.
Given this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding
that Cinar at least suggests sending plural feedback metrics indicative of
each use of a published API on each device or “client system” to a server as
claimed. Although Cinar does not state explicitly that the data collected by
each device’s agent are “feedback metrics,” Cinar nevertheless at least
Appeal 2020-000651
Application 14/840,896

6
suggests as much, particularly since this collected data can include, among
other things, performance data. Notably, this performance data is strikingly
similar to—and indeed encompasses—performance metrics referred to in the
Specification’s paragraph 21 which, according to that paragraph, are one
form of feedback metrics. Accord Ans. 8 (noting this point).
Cinar also at least suggests that the “feedback metrics” that are sent
from each device to the test workbench also at least indicate each use of a
published API deployed to the respective devices. Notably, a key element in
connection with collecting data from each device is an associated agent-side
API. See Cinar ¶¶ 26–27, 29–34 (detailing the agent API’s functions).
Because each device’s agent has an associated API that is used to, among
other things, collect and send device performance data to the test workbench,
the “feedback metrics” associated with this performance data would at least
indicate each use of the published API on each device or “client system.”
That feedback in the form of an error message is also provided to the
workbench upon unsuccessfully attempting to connect to an agent or device
in Cinar’s paragraphs 25 and 31 only further underscores that this feedback
at least indicates each use of the agent’s associated API, albeit indicating an
error condition associated with that particular device. Accord Ans. 11
(noting this error indication functionality).
Appellant’s arguments regarding the alleged shortcomings of Cinar’s
development environment and test workbench (Appeal Br. 9–11) are
unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 not argued separately with particularity.

Appeal 2020-000651
Application 14/840,896

7
THE REJECTION OVER CINAR, RISBOOD, AND DALAL
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 3,
which recites, in pertinent part, performing a specialized search on the
feedback metrics, where the search retrieves feedback metrics received since
the published API was last modified on the first client system.
In the rejection and Answer, the Examiner relies on both Risbood and
Cinar for teaching the disputed specialized search limitation. See Final Act.
9; Ans. 15–22. Notably, the Examiner emphasizes repeatedly in the Answer
that both references—not just Risbood—were cited for teaching the disputed
specialized search limitation. See Ans. 19 (“Thus, Cinar still teaches the
claimed [specialized search] limitation. In addition to the above teachings,
Risbood also teaches the claimed limitation.”) (emphasis added); see also
Ans. 22 (reiterating that both Cinar and Risbood teach the claimed
specialized search limitation).
In the Appeal Brief, however, Appellant cites only Risbood’s
paragraph 127 in contending that the prior art does not teach or suggest the
disputed specialized search limitation. See Appeal Br. 11–12. In short,
Appellant does not squarely address—let alone persuasively rebut—the
Examiner’s additional reliance on Cinar for teaching the disputed specialized
search limitation, much less the Examiner’s reliance on Risbood’s additional
disclosure cited on pages 19 to 22 of the Answer for teaching that limitation.
Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record favors the Examiner.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3, and claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 not argued
separately with particularity.

Appeal 2020-000651
Application 14/840,896

8
THE REJECTION OVER CINAR, RISBOOD, DALAL, AND KANNAN
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 4
reciting, in pertinent part, alerting a system administrator for the first client
system that at least one feature of the published API has been modified.
Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 12–13),
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on the
functionality of Kannan’s monitoring system 10 for at least suggesting
alerting a client system administrator of hardware and software
modifications to the monitored computer systems. See Ans. 22–26 (citing
Kannan ¶¶ 168–181). That the administrator can access and modify the
monitoring system to reflect changes in (1) the physical computer systems
16; (2) virtual machines 18; or (3) the type or extent of the required
information at least suggests alerting the administrator of these changes.
Although Kannan does not state explicitly that the administrator is
notified that a published API’s feature was modified as claimed, Kannan at
least suggests as much, particularly when considered in light of the other
cited references, including Cinar and Risbood, which teach monitoring and
modifying published APIs deployed to client systems, as noted previously
and by the Examiner. We reach this conclusion emphasizing the scope and
breadth of the disputed limitation, particularly since claim 4 does not specify
how—or by what means—the system administrator is alerted.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 4, and claims 11 and 18 not argued separately with particularity.

Appeal 2020-000651
Application 14/840,896

9
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 8, 14,
15
103 Cinar, Risbood 1, 7, 8, 14, 15
2, 3, 5, 6,
9, 10, 12,
13, 16, 17,
19, 20
103 Cinar,
Risbood, Dalal
2, 3, 5, 6, 9,
10, 12, 13, 16,
17, 19, 20

4, 11, 18 103 Cinar,
Risbood, Dalal,
Kannan
4, 11, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED