Ex Parte Bisceglia

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 7, 2008

10015855 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN F. BISCEGLIA
____________

Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: May 7, 2008
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appealed under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-47 as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
6,405,364 (“Bowman-Amuah”). We affirmed. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1), Appellant now requests a rehearing of the Decision on Appeal
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

2
entered on December 17, 2007 to reconsider our affirmance. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

II. CLAIMS 1, 15, 26, AND 37
The Examiner cites specific portions of Bowman-Amuah and asserts
“col. 21, line 65 (of Bowman-Amuah), regarding project documentation,
‘Clearly assign ownership for the contents of each folder’, col. 49, lines 6-
10, ‘Workflow Management tools address this . . . providing the ability to
define, manage, and execute automated business processes through an
electronic representation of the process both in terms of what has to be done,
and by whom (assignments to one or more developers).’” (Ans. 22).
Appellant asserts that “[t]he burden is on the Examiner and not on
Appellant to first construe the claims and then provide evidence as to how
the cited passages in the cited art disclose the claim limitations. The
Examiner never did that.” (Req. for Recons. 8). Appellant further asserts
that “the Board’s opinion did not construe the scope of ‘assigning the first
request to one or more developers’ as recited in claim 1” (id. 9). As set forth
above, we disagree that “the Examiner never did that (provided evidence as
to how the cited passages in the cite art disclose the claim limitations)”
because the Examiner cites specific portions of the cited reference and
explains the correlation between the cited portions of the cited reference
with each feature recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

3
To summarize, the Examiner finds that Bowman discloses folders that
store content including project information and assigning the ownership of
the folder contents to individuals responsible for implementing and/or
creating the project (col. 21, l. 65). Using “workflow management tools,”
the system of Bowman-Amuah assigns tasks and folder contents/project
information “in terms of what has to be done, and by whom” (Ans. 22). The
Examiner equates Bowman-Amuah’s assigning specific folder contents that
includes project information to individuals responsible for “what has to be
done” with “assigning said first request to one or more developers” recited
in claim 1.
Appellant further argues that “there is no language that discloses
assigning a first request to one or more developers (as recited in claim 1).”
(Req. for Recons. 8.) Appellant therefore argues patentability of claim 1
because the identical claim terms are not found in Bowman-Amuah. As we
pointed out, this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology
is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore,
even assuming that identical language is not disclosed in Bowman-Amuah
as Appellant asserts, we are unconvinced by Appellant’s argument.
Appellant disputes the finding that “control information” and “first
request” of claim 1 constitute non-functional descriptive material because
“[t]he first request is reviewed in accordance with the control information
for managing the first request” and “[t]he control information is used to
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

4
determine how to handle the request. See page 15, lines 10-16 of
Appellant’s Specification” (Req. for Recons. 5).
As explained previously, the descriptive material (i.e., “control
information” and “request” comprising a description of a development
environment) recited in claim 1 is non-functional descriptive material
because each of the “control information” and “request” does not
functionally affect the process of managing a development environment.
Rather, the control information is merely information that is used for
“managing said first request” by a computer program and the request is data
that is received (“receiving a first request”) and processed (“processing said
first request”) by the system. In each case, the data (i.e., “control
information” and “request”) do not affect how the method of the prior art is
performed on a computer system. In other words, the method of receiving
and processing the request and reviewing the request “in accordance with
control information” is carried out in the same way regardless of the nature
of the request or control information.
In In re Ngai, the court held that printed matter in a kit “in no way
depends on the kit, and the kit does not depend on the printed matter. All
that the printed matter does is teach a new use for an existing product” In re
Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and held that the instructions in
the kit constituted non-functional descriptive material. The present case is
directly comparable because the system manages the development
environment the same way regardless of whether a “first request/control
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

5
information” is received/processed or any other “request/control
information” is received/processed. In other words, the specific
request/control information and the system/computer do not depend on one
another to perform their functions.
In In re Curry, the Board held that in a computer-implemented
method of providing “wellness-related services,” “the ‘wellness-related data
in the databases . . . does not functionally change either the data storage
system or communication system used in the method of claim 81.
Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention
that would have otherwise been obvious.” See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d
1272 (BPAI 2005), aff’d (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003, aff’d Rule 36
June 12, 2006).
In In re Mathias, the Board held that an icon for viewing the score of
a broadcast sporting event constituted nonfunctional descriptive material
because such information “cannot lend patentability to an invention that
would have otherwise been anticipated by the prior art.” Ex parte Mathias,
84 USPQ 2d 1276, 1278-79 (BPAI 2005), aff’d 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed.
Cir. 2006).
In In re Nehls, SEQ ID NOs were held not to be “functionally related
to the computer system carrying out the comparison because the computer
compares a target sequence to a database the same way regardless of
whether the database includes any of SEQ ID NOs 9-1008: the SEQ ID
NOs and the computer do not depend on each other for their function.”
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

6
Because “the nature of the information being manipulated does not lend
patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or
process”, the Board found that the SEQ ID NOs in Nehls constituted non-
functional descriptive material. In re Nehls, Appeal 2007-1823 (BPAI
2008), http:// www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/prec/fd071823.pdf.
Because Appellant fails to demonstrate Examiner error, we maintain
our affirmance of the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 15, 26, and 37,
which fall therewith.

III. CLAIMS 2, 16, 27, AND 38
The Examiner finds that:
it is inherent that the developer is notified, in order to correct
the violated condition. Col. 21, lines 15-21, ‘Certain reports
should be run daily, such as the list of new data elements or
modified data elements. These reports can serve as an audit trail
of changes and can be used to communicate changes to the
entire team (communicate changes to developers, needed to
correct violations).’ Col. 21, lines 26-28, ‘When supporting
specific kinds of repository analysis, the Repository
Management team can provide custom reports or ad hoc queries
that satisfy particular needs.’ Also see col. 35, lines 30-55, ‘. . .
the management of design problems detected during
verification or validation steps . . . Problem tracking improves
communication between developers and business
representatives . . . By circulating problem documentation to all

Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

7
affected parties (notifying a developer of said violated
condition), management can minimize the risk of
misunderstandings . . . .

(Ans. 27-28).

Thus, the Examiner finds that Bowman-Amuah discloses “standards”
that “form the basis for a repository validation program which can . . . report
on detected deviations from standards” (col. 21, ll. 2-6), equates the
“standards” of Bowman-Amuah with the “condition” recited in claim 2,
equates “deviations from standards” of Bowman-Amuah with “violated
condition” recited in claim 2, and finds that such violated conditions (or
“deviations from standards”) are reported on “certain reports” that “should
be run daily.” These reports are further used to “communicate changes to
the entire team.” The Examiner finds that “the entire team” includes
developers. We agree with the Examiner’s construction of claim terms.
Appellant inquires: “Why can the Examiner ignore claim limitations,
namely, ‘notifying a developer?’” (Req. for Recons. 9). We disagree with
Appellant’s implication that the Examiner has ignored claim terms in view
of the Examiner’s explicit references to the claim limitation “notifying a
developer.”
Appellant argues that “there is no language in Bowman-Amuah that
discloses notifying a developer of a violated condition” (Req. for Recons. 9).
As set forth above, this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of
terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

8
Therefore, even assuming Bowman-Amuah fails to disclose the identical
terminology of claim 2 as asserted by Appellant, we find Appellant’s
argument unconvincing because exact terminology is not required. With the
exception of Bowman-Amuah allegedly lacking identical terminology
(which is immaterial), Appellant fails to allege much less demonstrate any
specific differences between Bowman-Amuah and claim 2 and has therefore
fails to establish Examiner error.
Therefore, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 2 and
of claims 16, 27, and 38, which fall therewith.

IV. CLAIMS 3, 17, 28, AND 39
Appellant states that Bowman-Amuah discloses a Repository
Management team performing certain analyses repeatedly and providing
“custom reports or ad hoc queries that satisfy particular needs” (col. 21, ll.
27-29), but asserts that the cited passages of Bowman-Amuah “do not
disclose inserting information of a violation of a condition in a report” (Req.
for Recons. 10). Appellant further inquires: “Where is this limitation
disclosed?” (Id.)
In response to Appellant’s inquiry, “Where is this limitation (inserting
information of a violation of a condition in a report) disclosed?” (Req. for
Recons. 10), we note that the Examiner states:
Bowman disclosed, col. 21, lines 22-30, “The Repository
Management team performs certain analyses repeatedly.
Standard analyses such as impact analyses should be specified
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

9
in detail . . . When supporting specific kinds of repository
analysis, the Repository Management team can provide custom
reports (inserting information of said violation of condition) or
ad hoc queries that satisfy particular needs.” Bowman
disclosed, col. 35, lines 45-47, ‘Problem tracking improves
communication between developers and business
representatives (customer).” Col. 45, lines 57-9, “E-mail is a
convenient tool for distributing information (issuing report) to a
group of people . . . .”

(Ans. 28).

Hence, the Examiner finds that Bowman-Amuah detects “deviations
from standards” (col. 21, ll. 3-4), creating “validation reports” (col. 21, l. 8)
that “show the occurrence of many standards violations” (col. 21, ll. 8-9),
providing “custom reports” (col. 21, ll. 27) that includes the “modified data
elements” (col. 21, l. 17), running reports daily and specifying “what their
distribution should be” (col. 21, ll. 20-21). The Examiner further equates
“deviations from standards” of Bowman-Amuah with a “violation of a
condition” of claim 3, the “validation reports” of Bowman-Amuah with the
“report” of claim 3, and “distributing” the report of Bowman-Amuah with
“issuing” the report to a customer of claim 3. We agree with the Examiner’s
construction of claim terms. We also agree that because the “validation
report” of Bowman-Amuah shows “many standards violations” (col. 21, ll.
3-4), the “many standards violations” must have been “inserted” into the
“validation report” as demonstrated by the fact that the “validation report”
contains the “standards violations.”
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

10
Appellant reproduces language from claim 3 and language from cited
passages of Bowman-Amuah (Reply Br. 9) and asserts that “[t]here is no
language in the cited passages that discloses inserting information of a
violation of a condition in a report. Neither is there any language in the
cited passages that discloses issuing the report to a customer” (id.). As
stated above, this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. Therefore, even assuming
identical terminology is not present in Bowman-Amuah, Appellant has
nevertheless failed to establish Examiner error.
Therefore, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 3 and
of claims 17, 28, and 39, which fall therewith.

V. CLAIMS 4, 18, 29, AND 40
Appellant inquires: “how is ‘inserting information on a status of the
development environment in a report; and issuing the report to a customer,’
as recited in claims 4, 18, 29 and 40, related to music, literary works, a mere
arrangement of data, or an abstract idea?” (Req. for Recons. 3).
The simple answer to Appellant’s question: in the context of
representative claim 4, “information on a status of said development
environment” constitutes a mere arrangement of data. The actual
requirements of claim 4 are: (1) inserting information (i.e., data) in a report;
and (2) issuing the report to a customer. The content of the inserted data
does not modify or affect the steps of the process.
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

11
Also, as explained previously, we find that “information on the status
of the . . . environment” constitutes non-functional descriptive material.
Similar to the “control information” and “request” of claim 1, there is no
evidence that the “status” information of claim 4 functionally affects the
process of inserting the status information in a report. In claim 4, “status”
information is inserted into a report the same way regardless of the status
information being inserted such that the status information and the system do
not depend on each other for their function.
Therefore, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 4 and
of claims 18, 29 and 40, which fall therewith.

VI. CLAIMS 5, 6, 19, 20, 30, 31, 41 AND 42
Appellant inquires: “[h]ow is ‘wherein said control information
comprises one or more of the following: a statement of work, a profile of a
server implemented in said development environment, a profile of a network
component implemented in said development environment, and a profile of
said development environment,’ as recited in claims 5, 19, 30 and 41, related
to music, literary works, a mere arrangement of data, or an abstract idea?”
(Req. for Recons. 3). Appellant also inquires: “[h]ow is ‘wherein said
statement of work comprises standards for hardware components and
software components in said target environment, wherein said statement of
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

12
work comprises contract conditions,’ as recited in claims 6, 20, 31 and 42,
related to music, literary works, a mere arrangement of data, or an abstract
idea?” (Req. for Recons. 3).
As explained previously, we find that “control information”
constitutes non-functional descriptive material. Each of the types of “control
information” is not functionally related to the system carrying out the
process of reviewing and processing a request because the system reviews
and processes a request regardless of whether control information includes
any of a “statement of work”, a “profile of a server,” a “profile of a network
component,” a “profile of a development environment,” or other type of
“control information.” In other words, there is no evidence that the
“control” information of claim 5 functionally affects the process of
managing a development environment because the control information and
the system do not depend on each other for their function.
Therefore, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 5, and
6 and of claims 19, 20, 30, 31, 41, and 42, which fall therewith.

VII. CLAIMS 7, 21, 32, AND 43
The Examiner finds that Bowman-Amuah:
Col. 19, line 14-col. 22, line 28 discloses Repository
Management tasks (server implemented in development
environment). Included are activities such as (col. 19. lines 15-
28) “monitoring and controlling update activities . . . receiving
and validating data element change request . . . creating and
modifying data elements . . . enforcing project standards . . .
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

13
validating the contents . . . ensuring accuracy . . . importing and
exporting . . . maintenance of the information model . . .
(description of server implemented in development
environment)”

(Ans. 30-31).

Appellant asserts that “[t]here is no language in the cited passage that
discloses a server profile.” (App. Br. 15.) As stated above, this is not an
ipsissimis verbis test. Therefore, the alleged lack of exact terminology in
Bowman-Amuah is immaterial. Appellant further inquires: “What is the
rationale for concluding that the teaching of activities of a repository
management necessarily entails the teaching of a server profile that includes
a description of the server implemented in the development environment?
. . . where is this limitation disclosed?” (Req. for Recons. 10).
To summarize the Examiner’s findings, Bowman-Amuah discloses
“Repository Management” information as “information generated within the
development environment, which needs to be carefully managed” (col. 18,
ll. 65-67). The Examiner equates this information with the “profile” of
claim 7 and finds that this information includes information describing
“monitoring and controlling update activities . . . receiving and validating
data element change request . . . creating and modifying data elements . . .
enforcing project standards . . .” (Ans. 31). Because a server includes any
“provider of data” (col. 1, l. 61) and the information (i.e., Repository
Management information) includes information that describes activities of
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

14
the system that provides data, we agree with the Examiner that the “profile”
includes a description of the system that “provides data” (i.e., a “server”).
We find that the Examiner has provided a convincing rationale for the
rejection of the claim in the Examiner’s Answer as indicated above whereas
Appellant failed to demonstrate Examiner error.
Appellant also inquires: “[h]ow is ‘wherein said server profile
comprises a description of said server implemented in said development
environment,’ as recited in claims 7, 21, 32 and 43, related to music, literary
works, a mere arrangement of data, or an abstract idea?” (Req. for Recons.
3). We find that “control information” constitutes non-functional descriptive
material for reasons previously set forth. Claim 7 recites a form of “control
information.”
Therefore, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 7 and
of claims 21, 32 and 43, which fall therewith.

VIII. CLAIMS 8, 22, 33, AND 44
The Examiner states:
See FIG. 1, #135 Network and FIG. 4, #402 / Network Support
. . . (Bowman) discloses (col. 2, lines 17-21) “A system, method
and article of manufacture are provided for building system in a
development architecture framework. Requirements are
specified for both a system to be built and an implementation
strategy to fulfill the requirements (serves & network used in
environment). The System is built according to the
implementation strategy.” The network component is part of the
Environment Management Team (col. 14, line 40)
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

15
responsibility. Col. 16, line 24, “The core activity-systems
building, depends strongly on support from the surrounding
management processes . . .

(Ans. 31).

Appellant asserts that “[t]here is no language in the cited passages that
discloses a network component profile” (App. Br. 16). As stated above, this
is not an ipsissimis verbis test. Therefore, the alleged lack of exact
terminology in Bowman-Amuah is immaterial. Appellant further inquires:
“where is this limitation disclosed?” (Req. for Recons. 11).
To summarize the Examiner’s findings, the Examiner demonstrates
that the system of Bowman-Amuah includes a “network” (FIG. 1; FIG. 4;
col. 14, line 40). We also find that a network must include components of
the network (or “network components”). The Examiner also demonstrates
that Bowman-Amuah discloses specified requirements of a system to be
built according to a specified implementation strategy and equates such
specified requirement information to “a description of said network
component implemented in said development environment” of claim 8.
Because the information of Bowman-Amuah includes information
describing the “requirements of the system to be built” and the system to be
built includes “network components” as described above, we agree with the
Examiner that the information describing the “requirements of the system to
be built” includes information describing the network components of the
system (as part of the system to be built). We also agree with the Examiner
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

16
that such information constitutes the “network component profile” that
describes the “network component implemented in said development
environment” as recited in claim 8 for reasons set forth above.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner indicated the location of the
disclosure in Bowman-Amuah and provided arguments supporting the
contention that Bowman-Amuah discloses claim features. Appellant failed
to provide a rationale supporting that the Examiner erred.
Appellant also inquires: “[h]ow is ‘wherein said network component
profile comprises a description of said network component implemented in
said development environment,’ as recited in claims 8, 22, 33 and 44, related
to music, literary works, a mere arrangement of data, or an abstract idea?”
(Req. for Recons. 3-4).
We find that the recited “control information” constitutes non-
functional descriptive material for reasons previously set forth. Claim 8
recites a form of “control information.”
Therefore, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 8 and
of claims 22, 33, and 44, which fall therewith.

IX. CLAIMS 9, 23, 34, AND 45
The Examiner states:
Bowman: See FIG. 1 regarding the hardware components of the
development environment. Col. 72, lines 5-26, “System
building tools comprise the core of the development
architecture and are used to design, build, and test the system . .
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

17
. Analysis tools are used to specify the requirements for the
system being developed (software application to be developed).
Design tools are used to specify ‘how’ a system will implement
these system requirements. The standard client/server model
comprises application logic, presentation, and communication
components, which together support the business process. For a
client/server system software application to be developed), each
of these components must be individually defined.” (Emphasis
added.)

(Ans. 32).

Appellant asserts that “neither is there any language in the cited
passage that discloses a profile of the development environment that
comprises a description of the software application to be developed” (Req.
for Recons. 12). As stated above, this is not an ipsissimis verbis test.
Therefore, the alleged lack of exact terminology in Bowman-Amuah is
immaterial.
Appellant generally inquires: “[w]hat is the rationale for concluding
that . . . a client/server system (of Bowman-Amuah) . . . entails . . . a profile
of a development environment” (Req. for Recons. 12). To re-iterate the
Examiner’s findings, the Examiner demonstrates that Bowman-Amuah
discloses “modeling and diagramming tools, which provide the ability to
diagram system requirement and specify ‘what’ a system must do” (col. 72,
ll. 12-15) and design tools that “are used to specify ‘how’ a system will
implement these system requirements” (col. 72, ll. 16-17). The Examiner
further finds that a standard “client/server model comprises application
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

18
logic, presentation, and communication components” (Ans. 32) and equates
information utilized by the “tools” of Bowman-Amuah with the “profile”
recited in claim 9 because the profile of claim 9, like the information utilized
by the “tools” of Bowman-Amuah includes “a description of the software
application to be developed” (which the Examiner equates with components
in the client/server system of Bowman-Amuah). The Examiner thus equates
components of the client/server system of Bowman-Amuah with the profile
of the development environment of claim 9 under the rationale that both
components perform the same function under the same conditions and
contain the same information. Therefore, we find that, contrary to
Appellant’s implication, the Examiner provided the requested “rationale”
(Ans. 31-32, reproduced above).
Appellant also inquires: “[h]ow is ‘wherein said profile of said
development environment comprises a description of said hardware
components and said software components of said development
environment, wherein said profile of said development environment
comprises a description of said software application to be developed,’ as
recited in claims 9, 23, 34 and 45, related to music, literary works, a mere
arrangement of data, or an abstract idea?” (Req. for Recons. 4).
We find that “control information” constitutes non-functional
descriptive material for reasons previously set forth. Claim 9 recites a form
of “control information.”
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

19
Therefore, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 9 and
of claims 23, 34, and 45, which fall therewith.

X. CLAIM 10
The Examiner states:
Bowman: FIG. 4 and col. 14, lines 40-58, “. . . development
environment requires system operations daily, and developers
require ongoing support (updating) in order to use the
environment effectively (server) . . . To ensure that this area
receives the necessary attention, an Environment Management
team 400 should be assigned these tasks. FIG. 4 is an
illustration showing the Environmental Management Team
responsibilities.” See tasks in FIG. 4 as related to an updated
profile of a server implemented in a development environment.
“Technical standards support (description of server
implemented in development environment), design review,
general technical support, operations architecture support, etc.

(Ans. 32-33).

As described above, Appellant fails to demonstrate Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 7. Therefore, the Examiner demonstrates that
Bowman-Amuah discloses a server profile (repository management
information) that comprises a description of the server implemented in the
development environment as recited in claim 7 and claim 10. The Examiner
finds that Bowman-Amuah (FIG. 4) also discloses technical standards
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

20
support, design review, general technical support, etc. and equates these
elements with evidence that a server profile is “updated” in Bowman-Amuah
(Ans. 32-33).
In addition, Bowman-Amuah discloses that the “repository
management” information (“server profile”) is updated by, for example,
“moving repository objects” (col. 19, l. 34) or “merging the development
and system test repositories” (col. 19, ll. 36-37) such that repository “objects
could have changed” (col. 19, ll. 41-42). We find that any of moving,
merging, or changing of the repository management information constitutes
“updating” the information.
Appellant argues that Bowman-Amuah’s disclosure that change
control “governs what software component is changed” (col. 28, ll. 39-40) is
“not . . . directed to updating data” (Req. for Recons. 13) and inquires:
“What is the rational connection between this statement and . . . ‘updating a
profile’” (id.). We use the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
“updating” to encompass “modifying to a more recent status.” Therefore,
under a broad but reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that
“changing” is synonymous with “updating.” Appellant fails to provide an
alternate interpretation of the term “updating” that differs from that of
“changing.” Nor does Appellant provide specific arguments differentiating
Bowman-Amuah from claim 10.

Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

21
Appellant also inquires: how is “wherein said processing said first
request comprises updating a profile of a server implemented in said
development environment, wherein said server profile comprises a
description of said server implemented in said development environment’ as
recited in claim 10 related to music, literary works, a mere arrangement of
data, or an abstract idea?” (Req. for Recons. 4).
We find that “information” (e.g., a request, a profile of a server, or a
description of the server, as recited in claim 10) constitutes non-functional
descriptive material for reasons previously set forth.
Therefore, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 10.

XI. CLAIM 11
The Examiner states:
Bowman: FIG. 4 and col. 14, lines 40-58, “. . . development
environment requires system operations daily, and developers
require ongoing support (updating) in order to use the
environment (network) effectively . . . To ensure that this area
receives the necessary attention, an Environment Management
team 400 should be assigned these tasks. FIG. 4 is an
illustration showing the Environmental Management Team
responsibilities.” See tasks in FIG. 4 as related to an updated
profile of a server implemented in a development environment.
“Technical standards support (description of network
component implemented), design review, general technical
support, operations architecture support, etc.

(Ans. 33).
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

22

As described above, Appellant fails to establish Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 8. Therefore, the Examiner has demonstrated that
Bowman-Amuah discloses a network component profile that comprises a
description of the network component implemented in the development
environment as recited in claim 8 and claim 11. The Examiner also finds
that Bowman-Amuah (FIG. 4) also discloses technical standards support,
design review, general technical support, etc. and equates these elements
with evidence that the network component profile is “updated” in Bowman-
Amuah (Ans. 32-33).
Appellant argues that Bowman-Amuah’s disclosure that change
control “governs what software component is changed” (col. 28, ll. 39-40) is
“not . . . directed to updating data” (Req. for Recons. 14) and inquires:
“What is the rational connection between this statement and . . . updating a
profile . . .” (id.). As set forth above, we agree with the Examiner that
“changing” is synonymous with “updating.” Appellant fails to provide an
alternate interpretation of the term “updating” that differs from that of
“changing.” Nor does Appellant provide specific arguments differentiating
Bowman-Amuah from claim 11.
Appellant also inquires: “[h]ow is ‘wherein said processing said first
request comprises updating a profile of a network component implemented
in said development environment, wherein said network component profile
comprises a description of said network component implemented in said
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

23
development environment’ as recited in claim 11 related to music, literary
works, a mere arrangement of data, or an abstract idea?” (Req. for Recons.
4).
We find that “information” (e.g., information pertaining to a network
component implemented in a development environment as recited in claim
11) constitutes non-functional descriptive material for reasons previously set
forth.
Therefore, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 11.

XII. CLAIM 12
As described above, Appellant fails to establish Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 12. Therefore, the Examiner has demonstrated that
Bowman-Amuah discloses a profile of the development environment that
includes a description of the hardware and software components and the
profile including a description of the software application to be developed.
Also, as set forth above, we agree with the Examiner that Bowman-Amuah
discloses changing information which is equivalent to “updating”
information including the profile. Appellants fail to demonstrate otherwise.
Appellant also inquires: how is “wherein said processing said first
request comprises updating profile of said development environment,
wherein said profile of said development environment comprises a
description of said hardware components and said software components of
said development environment, wherein said profile of said development
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

24
environment comprises a description of said software application to be
developed’ as recited in claim 12 related to music, literary works, a mere
arrangement of data, or an abstract idea?” (Req. for Recons. 4).
We find that “information” (e.g., a request, profile information, or a
description (of components)) recited in claim 12 constitutes non-functional
descriptive material for reasons previously set forth.
Therefore, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 12.

XIII. CLAIMS 13, 14, 24, 25, 35, 36, 46 AND 47
Appellant argues that “[c]laims 13-14, 24-25, 35-36, and 46-47 are
not non-functional descriptive material and therefore carries patentable
weight” and that “Bowman-Amuah does not disclose all the limitations of
claims 13-14, 24,-25, 35-36, and 46-47” (Req. for Recons. 16).
As set forth above, we find that the claims at issue recite non-
functional descriptive material that does not receive patentable weight for
reasons previously provided. Also, although Appellant argues that
“Bowman-Amuah does not disclose all the limitations” of the claims at
issue, Appellant nevertheless fails to provide a convincing rationale as to
how the cited portions of Bowman-Amuah differ from the disputed claim
limitations.
Appellant also inquires: “[h]ow is ‘receiving a second request,
wherein said second request comprises a request to implement a change in
said development environment’ as recited in claim 13, 24, 35 and 46 related
Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

25
to music, literary works, a mere arrangement of data, or an abstract idea?”
(Req. for Recons. 4) and “[h]ow is ‘receiving a second request, wherein said
second request comprises a request to correct a problem detected in said
development environment’ as recited in claims 14, 25, 36 and 47, related to
music, literary works, a mere arrangement of data, or an abstract idea?”
(Req. for Recons. 4-5).
We find that “information” (e.g., a request as recited in claims 13 and
14) constitutes non-functional descriptive material for reasons previously set
forth.
In the absence of specific arguments by Appellant to demonstrate
Examiner error, we maintain our affirmance of the rejection of claim 13 and
of claims 24, 35, and 46, which fall therewith.

XIV. ORDER
In summary, we deny the Appellant’s request to reverse the rejection
of claims 1-47 under § 102(e).

Appeal 2007-3447
Application 10/015,855

26
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

DENIED

pgc

IBM CORP (WSM)
C/O WINSTEAD SECHREST & MINICK P.C.
PO BOX 50784
DALLAS, TX 75201