Ex Parte Acker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2017

12641387 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 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.
12/641,387 12/18/2009 Michael Acker 2009P00100US 1528
62730 7590
SAP SE
3410 HILLVIEW AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
EXAMINER
PAULINO, LENIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2017 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):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL ACKER, FRANZ-JOSEF STORTZ, and
JUERGEN REMMEL
Appeal 2016-003748
Application 12/641,387
Technology Center 2100
Before: HUNG H. BUI, JOHN R. KENNY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims
1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 18, which constitute all pending claims. Final Act.
1; App. Br. 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2016-003748
Application 12/641,387
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to methods and systems for generating a
where-used objects list, in which the where-used objects list identifies
software objects to be considered for changes and testing after a software
upgrade (e.g., with service patches). Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
storing computer-readable instructions thereon, which when
executed by a computer, cause the computer to:
receive a new version of a provider’s program, wherein a
current version of the provider’s program comprising used
objects is used in a customized program, the customized
program comprising the provider’s program plus one or more
additional features added to the provider’s program or one or
more modifications to existing features of provider’s program
for a customer that are not included in provider’s program for
all customers, and wherein contracts are assigned to the current
version of the provider’s program and to the used objects, and
wherein the contracts comprise information to describe content
of the current version of the provider’s program with the used
objects and relations of the used objects to other objects from
the customized program, and wherein the new version of the
provider's program comprises modified versions of one or more
of the used objects in the current version of the provider’s
program;
compare the new version of the provider’s program with
the contracts assigned to the current version of the provider’s
program and to the used objects;
based on the comparison, detect one or more
modifications in a set of used objects from the current version
of the provider’s program;
2
Appeal 2016-003748
Application 12/641,387
identify a type of the one or more modifications, wherein
the type of the one or more modifications is selected from the
group consisting of compatible, incompatible, and irrelevant;
generate a where-used objects list with a set of objects
from the current version of the provider’s program used in the
customized program, wherein the set of objects from the current
version of the provider’s program used in the customized
program includes set of used objects comprising the detected
one or more modifications;
generate the contracts during a first copy of the provider's
program in the customized program and store the contracts in a
where-used object unit; and
regenerate the contracts when at least one of a request to adopt,
a request to adjust, and a request to ignore the detected one or more
modifications is received.
REFERENCES
US 2003/0145315 A1 July 31, 2003
US 2003/0229890 A1 Dec. 11, 2003
US 2008/0209400 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
US 2009/0083268 A1 Mar. 26, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 8, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Lau, Parker, and Coqueret. Final
Act. 3.
Claim 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lau, Parker, Coqueret, and Aro. Final
Act. 9.
Aro
Lau
Parker
Coqueret
3
Appeal 2016-003748
Application 12/641,387
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 8, 14, and 15
Appellants argue that Parker does not teach or suggest: (i) the
generating-contracts limitation,1 (ii) the regenerating-contracts limitation,2
and (iii) the comparing limitation,3 all recited by claim 1. App. Br. 10—12;
Reply Br. 2-4.
First, Appellants argue that Parker does not teach or suggest the
generating-contracts limitation because Parker generates contracts for
services that are provided on computer systems that are external to Parker’s
composite application. App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 2—3. The Examiner,
however, maps the customized program, recited by claim 1, to both Parker’s
composite application and external code providing the contracted services.
Ans. 2-4. With the mapping, Parker’s contracts are for services provided in
and by the customized program. Id. Although Appellants argue that this
mapping is erroneous, Appellants provide no persuasive arguments or
evidence indicating an error in this mapping, and on this record, we see no
such error. Reply Br. 1—2.
Appellants further argue that Parker’s contracts do not comprise the
information related to the used objects and other objects from a customized
program, recited by claim 1. App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 2—3. In making this
argument, however, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s mapping of
1 “generate the contracts during a first copy of the provider’s program in the
customized program and store the contracts in a where-used object unit.”
2 “regenerate the contracts when at least one of a request to adopt, a request
to adjust, and a request to ignore the detected one or more modifications is
received.”
3 “compare the new version of the provider's program with the contracts
assigned to the current version of the provider's program and to the used
objects.”
4
Appeal 2016-003748
Application 12/641,387
the recited customized program to Parker’s composite application and the
external code providing services. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2—3.
Therefore, on this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that
Parker teaches or suggests the generating-contracts limitation of claim 1.
Second, Appellants argue that Parker does not teach or suggest the
regenerating-contracts limitation of claim 1 because (i) Parker’s contracts
concern services that are not provided by its composite application and
(ii) Parker merely updates the version information of the service in a
contract when updating code. App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by these
arguments. As with the generating-contracts limitation, Appellants do not
address the Examiner’s mapping the recited customized program to both
Parker’s composite application and the external code providing services, nor
do Appellants provide persuasive arguments or evidence of error in that
mapping. Id. Further, Appellants do not provide any persuasive reasoning
or evidence as to why updating the version information of the service in the
contract does not constitute regeneration of the contract. Id. Accordingly,
on this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Parker teaches
or suggests the regenerating-contracts limitation of claim 1.
Third, Appellant argues that Lau does not teach or suggest the
comparing limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 3^4. We are
not persuaded by this argument because Lau discloses comparing an
upgraded system with an existing system using the existing system’s profile.
Final Act. 5; Lau 134. The Examiner finds that, in so doing, Lau utilizes the
metadata in the profile, which the Examiner finds are contracts. Ans. 4.
Appellants do not provide persuasive arguments or evidence indicating any
error in these findings by the Examiner. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 3^4.
5
Appeal 2016-003748
Application 12/641,387
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2, 8, 14, and
15, not separately argued. App. Br. 13.
Claims 4, 11, and 18
Appellants argue that Aro fails to teach or suggest the limitation in
claim 4 of “receive a request to ignore a third modification from the detected
one or more modifications in the customized program, when the identified
type of the one or more modifications is irrelevant.” App. Br. 13—15; Reply
Br. 5—6. The Examiner finds that Aro teaches or suggests this limitation by
checking whether a default value for a new field is accessible in a new
version of software. Final Act. 10 (citing Aro Fig 4A, element 308); Ans. 5—
6. Appellants argue that this checking does not teach or suggest, as claim 4
requires, ignoring a modification when an identified type of modification is
irrelevant. Reply Br. 5—6. Instead, Appellants argue Aro’s checking is
directed to determining whether default values for relevant fields in software
are missing. Id. We agree with Appellants. The cited disclosure in Aro
does not teach or suggest ignoring software modifications that are irrelevant.
Instead, the cited disclosure teaches sending an error message when it cannot
determine the default value for a new, relevant field in new software. Aro
Fig. 4A. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 or claims
11 and 18, which recite corresponding limitations.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 14, and 15.
We reverse the rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6