Ex Parte Balu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201411873460 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SURESH BALU, SOLOMON M. BISKER, ZAHIR A. DOSSA, and HYDUKE NOSHADI ____________ Appeal 2012-008588 Application 11/873,460 Technology Center 2100 ____________ ERRATUM A Decision on Appeal for the above-identified application was mailed on November 4, 2014 (see attached copy of the decision). However, a review of the record indicates that a complete copy of the decision was not transmitted electronically. Accordingly, the decision is hereby re-mailed. Appellant’s time for seeking rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) or judicial review under 37 C.F.R. § 90.3 is hereby reset from the mail date of this order. Any confusion caused regarding this matter is regretted. If there any questions pertaining to this Erratum, please contact the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at 571-272-9797. SJB/eld UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SURESH BALU, SOLOMON M. BISKER, ZAHIR A. DOSSA, and HYDUKE NOSHADI ____________________ Appeal 2012-008588 Application 11/873,460 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, WILLIAM M. FINK, and CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges. FINK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–9. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The real party in interest is the International Business Machines Corporation. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Appellants attempted to amend independent claims 1, 4, and 7 to incorporate the limitations of dependent claims 3, 6, and 9. (App. Br. 2.) However, the Examiner has not entered these proposed amendments. (Id.) Appellants challenge the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 6, and 9, based on limitations that narrow claims 1, 4, and 7 respectively. (Id. at 3, 6; Reply Br. 2.) However, Appellants do not argue the recitations of claims 1, 4, and 7 themselves and state that only claims 3, 6, and 9 are the subject of appeal. (Footnote continued on next page.) Appeal 2012-008588 Application 11/873,460 2 We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to software application installation and configuration for different computer environments. (Spec. ¶ 1.) 3 Specifically, Appellants claim systems and methods for addressing deficiencies in automated application installation in a target computing system by “retrieving a corresponding configuration for the selection of other computing systems installing the application.” (Id. ¶¶ 6–7.) Claims on Appeal Claims 3, 6, and 9 are the claims on appeal. Claim 3 and independent claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, are reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized. 1. An autonomic application installation method comprising: initiating an installation of an application onto a target computing system; remotely retrieving a configuration for the target computing system previously established for other computing systems installing the application; (App. Br. 2, 11–15). As such, in the event of further prosecution the Examiner should cancel claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. See Ex Parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). 3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed January 17, 2012 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 13, 2012 (“Ans.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed May 14, 2012; Final Office Action mailed June 7, 2011 (“Final Act.”); and the original Specification filed October 17, 2007 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-008588 Application 11/873,460 3 applying the remotely retrieved configuration to the target computing system prior to installing the application onto the target computing system; and, installing the application onto the target computing system. 3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the installation of the application onto the target computing system has succeeded; and, uploading a configuration for the installed application in the target computing system to a remote data store of installation configurations for use by other computing systems installing the application. Evidence Considered Fisher US 5,367,686 Nov. 22, 1994 Moshir US 6,990,660 B2 Jan. 24, 2006 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fisher and Moshir. (Ans. 3–13.) Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issue on appeal is whether the combination of Fisher and Moshir teach or suggest “uploading a configuration for the installed application in the target computing system to a remote data store of installation configurations for use by other computing systems installing the application,” as required by claim 3 and similar limitations in claims 6 and 9. (App. Br. 6–10, 12.) Appeal 2012-008588 Application 11/873,460 4 ANALYSIS With respect to Appellants’ claims 3, 6, and 9, 4 the Examiner relies on the combination of Fisher and Moshir. (Ans. 5–13.) In particular, the Examiner finds that Fisher teaches “uploading a configuration for the installed application in the target computing system” but does not teach a “remote data store.” (Id. at 7.) However, the Examiner finds that Moshir’s description of a software “patch fingerprint” stored in a separate library accessible to the target computer teaches a “remote data store of installation configurations for use by other computing systems installing the application,” as recited in claim 3. (Id. at 8 (citing Moshir, 13:42–67).) The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Fisher with the teachings of Moshir to make data shareable among servers and target computers. (Id. at 9 (citing Moshir, 13:49–51).) Appellants dispute the Examiner’s findings. (App. Br. 6–10.) Specifically, Appellants contend the patch fingerprint described in Moshir and relied upon by the Examiner “defines a specific software update,” which “includes a ‘signature’ and a ‘test.’” (App. Br. 8–9 (citing Moshir, cl. 1).) As such, Appellants contend it is not a “configuration for an installed application,” as claimed. (Id.) Appellants argue that, because the Examiner improperly construed “configuration for an installed application” as a “‘definition of an update to an installed application’ that includes a ‘signature’ and a ‘test,’” the Examiner has not located all claimed elements of Appellants’ claims 3, 6, and 9. (Id.) 4 Appellants’ arguments are directed at the limitations of claim 3. (App. Br. 6–10.) We focus on claim 3 in our review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2012-008588 Application 11/873,460 5 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Where a rejection is based on a combination of references, “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually . . . .” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Instead, the test is what the combination “would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425. Here, the Examiner relies on the combination of Fisher and Moshir, not Moshir alone, as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation. (Ans. 7– 8.) As noted supra, the Examiner finds Fisher teaches “uploading a configuration for the installed application in the target computing system.” (Ans. 7 (citing Fisher, 7:48–50).) Specifically, Fisher describes an “installation profile,” which the Examiner finds teaches a “configuration.” (Id. at 5 (citing Fisher, 2:29–34 (“[A]n installation profile is created utilizing these specified system options, including at least a description of the operating system to be utilized and a description of the data processing system hardware configuration.”).) As the Examiner finds, Fisher explains how the installation profile can be stored on portable storage media. (Id. (citing Fisher, 2:35–37).) Based on this evidence, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Fisher teaches the required “uploading a configuration of an installed application” and note that Appellants do not address this finding in their arguments. With respect to Moshir, the Examiner relies on it for the teaching that configurations generally can be stored on a “remote data store” as required by the claims. (Ans. 7–8.) Specifically, the Examiner relies on Moshir’s description of a “patch fingerprint,” which “may also define a minimum hardware/software configuration necessary for the patch installation . . . stored in a fingerprint library 904 . . .,” as teaching the “remote data store” Appeal 2012-008588 Application 11/873,460 6 not expressly disclosed in Fisher. (Id. (quoting Moshir, 13:42–67) (emphasis added).) The Examiner concludes that “one skilled in the art . . . would have incorporated Moshir’s approach of replenishing configuration data remotely to a data store for latter [sic] use into Fisher . . . .” (Id. at 9.) Based on the Examiner’s findings, we agree the combination “would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art,” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, the required “uploading a configuration for the installed application in the target computing system to a remote data store of installation configurations for use by other computing systems installing the application.” Because we are not persuaded that Fisher and Moshir do not teach or suggest the disputed limitations, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 3. With respect to the claims 6 and 9, Appellants make no separate patentability arguments. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of these claims as well. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 3, 6, and 9. 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). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation