Ex Parte Barta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2013

10705525 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/705,525 11/10/2003 Attila Barta RSW920030176US1 5400
46320 7590 12/12/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
CHEN, QING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2013 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 ATTILA BARTA, KWASI A. ASARE,
RICHARD HUDDLESTON, and DANIEL E. JEMIOLO
____________________

Appeal 2011-001354
Application 10/705,525
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2011-001354
Application 10/705,525

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
The Appellants filed a REQUEST FOR REHEARING on August 28,
2013. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-13, and 41 in a Final Rejection,
mailed November 9, 2009. We affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and
41 as unpatentable over the cited prior art in our Decision mailed June 28,
2013.
We DENY the REQUEST FOR REHEARING.

ISSUE
The issue pertinent to this request is whether the Appellants have
sustained their burden of showing that we misapprehended the claims and
Specification, and thus erred in sustaining the rejections of claims. 37
C.F.R. 41.52(a)(1).

ANALYSIS
We found in our Decision that the Examiner did not err in concluding
that claims 1, 3-13, and 41 are obvious over the cited prior art. Decision 4-7.
The Appellants contends that we misapprehended the issue argued by the
Appellants. Request 4-6. The Appellants specifically argue that we
misapprehended Te’eni in determining that Te’eni describes “an indication
of incompatibility with a previously installed software component,” as
recited by claim 1. The Appellants argue that Te’eni describes “examination
of the component data and the dependency rules associated with the
component objects that need to be inserted into the existing framework of
the operative system” and “the framework referred to in Te'eni and directly
compared by the Honorable Board to the claimed ‘previously installed
Appeal 2011-001354
Application 10/705,525

3
software component’ is in fact, not a previously installed software
component.” Request 5.
We disagree with the Appellants that we misapprehended Te’eni. As
we found in our Decision, “Te’eni describes an upgrade process, that shows
incompatibility (conflicts) of a previously installed software component (‘ ...
inserted into the existing framework...’).” Decision 5. In other words, Te’eni
describes determining if there is a conflict between a component to be installed
with a component that has already been installed. As such, it is not only the
“framework” that is being upgraded, but the components in the framework.
Accordingly, we do not find the Appellants’ argument to be persuasive.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 We have considered the REQUEST FOR REHEARING.
 We DENY the request that we reverse the Examiner as to the rejection
of claims 1, 3-13, and 41 obvious over the cited prior art.

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) (2010).

DENIED

tj