Ex Parte Boyer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201612116369 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/116,369 05/07/2008 John M. Boyer 45544 7590 03/30/2016 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC 540 Broadway 4THFLOOR ALBANY, NY 12207 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. CA920080011US1 6948 EXAMINER HUDA, MOHAMMED NURUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 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): PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN M. BOYER, ERIC DUNN, SARAH R. PUGH, and BRAAMP. SMITH Appeal2014-004140 Application 12/116,369 Technology Center 2100 Before BETH Z. SHAW, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, 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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 16. Claims 2, 6, 10, and 14 have been canceled. See App. Br. 15-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-004140 Application 12/116,369 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention relates to preserving a state of an application during an update of the application. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for preserving a state of an application during update, comprising: providing an initial document template tagged by a name which is unique to the initial document template and a current version number to represent an initial state of the application; instantiating the application by providing a user with a copy of the initial document template, the instantiating yielding an instantiated document; allowing the user to interact with the instantiated document; performing a check for updates of the application at times in a document run time that are specified by at least one of; a document run-time processor and the instantiated document; and updating the application if the currently instantiated document application version is not a latest available version of the application, as follows: obtaining a latest version of the initial document template: obtaining a transformation description for converting end-user data in the instantiated document to an updated schema format, if an end-user data schema of the application has been changed, creating a newly instantiated document on the latest version of the initial document template for the application, 2 Appeal2014-004140 Application 12/116,369 transforming the end-user data using the transformation description if one was given, placing the end-user data or transformed end-user data into the newly instantiated document in the updated schema format, and replacing the instantiated document for the application with the new instantiated document for the application in the end-user experience. Rejection2 Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over D' Angelo (US 2008/0022271 Al, published Jan. 24, 2008) and Wetherly (US 2006/0236317 Al, published Oct. 19, 2006). Final Act. 5-27. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Final Act. 5-29; Ans. 26-33. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Issue: Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of D 'Angelo and Weatherly teaches or suggests "performing a check for updates of the application at times in a document run time that are specified 2 The rejections of claims 9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, have been withdrawn. Ans. 2-3. 3 Appeal2014-004140 Application 12/116,369 by at least one of~ a document run-time processor and the instantiated document" (hereinafter "the disputed limitation"), as recited in claim 1? Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds W etherly teaches checking for updates in accordance with a predetermined schedule or when an application is launched on a terminal device. Final Act. 8 (citing Wetherly i-f 57); Ans. 28. Based on this finding, the Examiner concludes W etherly teaches or suggests "performing a check for updates of the application at times in a document run time that are specified by at least one of; a document run-time processor and the instantiated document," as recited in claim 1. Id. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wetherly teaches or suggests the disputed limitation because "simply checking for updates when an application is launched fails to explicitly teach or suggest performing a check for updates in a document run time specified by at least one of: a document run-time processor and the instantiated document." App. Br. 8. Appellants contend W etherly instead teaches that update notification messages are sent out by the developer and therefore teaches away from the disputed limitation. App. Br. 9--10 (citing Wetherly i-fi-147-51). Appellants further contend Wetherly fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because "Wetherly does not disclose a document run-time processor, and therefore it is not obvious that this [checking for updates specified by a document run-time processor] is specified by Wetherly." Reply Br. 2. Appellants further contend: [E]ven assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner's assumption is correct, which Appellants expressly do not concede, Wetherly would only teach checking for updates at a single time, not Appellants' claimed "times in a document run time." Appellants 4 Appeal2014-004140 Application 12/116,369 claim checking for updates at plural times in a document run time, and W etherly, at best, would teach a single time, as the Examiner specified that when Wetherly's "application is launched implies at run-time." (Examiner's Answer, Page 6). Therefore, W etherly can only be interpreted to disclose a single time of checking for an update according to the Examiner's interpretation of W etherly. Reply Br. 3. We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Wetherly teaches two scenarios for distributing updates to applications. W etherly i-f 4 7. Wetherly describes a first distribution scenario that is initiated by an application gateway (Wetherly i-fi-1 48-56) and a second distribution scenario that is initiated by a terminal device (Wetherly i-fi-1 57-61 ). With respect to the second distribution scenario, Wetherly teaches "the triggering event is when the terminal device logs onto the AG [application gateway] 2, although other events may also be used." Wetherly i-f 57 (emphasis added). Wetherly teaches that these other events include the run-time environment (RE) sending a message in accordance with a predetermined schedule or when an application is launched on the terminal device. Id. As such, Wetherly teaches or suggests performing a check for updates of the application at multiple times in a document run time-when the application logs onto the application gateway and when the application is launched on the terminal device. Wetherly teaches that the terminal device includes microprocessor 16 that "operates under software control to provide the functionality of the terminal device, i.e., to enable one or more application(s) 30 to run on the device." Wetherly i-f 25. As such, Wetherly teaches or suggests that the check for updates is performed by a time specified by a run-time processor (e.g., microprocessor 16 operating under software control 5 Appeal2014-004140 Application 12/116,369 to enable the application to run on the terminal device). Appellants' contention regarding W etherly teaching away from the disputed limitation is unpersuasive because it only addresses W etherly' s teachings regarding the first distribution scenario and fails to address Wetherly's teachings regarding the second distribution scenario, upon which the Examiner relies for teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1; independent claims 5, 9, and 13, which recite similar limitations and are not separately argued with particularity; and claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which depend from claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 and are not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 10-14. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation