Ex Parte Kaminsky et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 19, 2012

10321356 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2012)

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.
10/321,356 12/17/2002 David Louis Kaminsky RSW920020113US1 (072) 3212
46320 7590 01/20/2012
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/20/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID LOUIS KAMINSKY, DAVID M. OGLE and
RICHARD DEAN TELFORD
____________

Appeal 2009-013963
Application 10/321,356
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI and
KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013963
Application 10/321,356

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a non-final
rejection of claims 1, 9 and 14.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to dependency management during the
installation of upgraded application components in a computer system. Spec.
1, ¶ 0001.
Independent claims 1 and 9 are illustrative of the issues on appeal and
are reproduced below [disputed limitations in italics]:
1. An autonomic component installation system
comprising:
a catalog of host components installed within a
computing system;
an autonomic installer coupled to said catalog and
programmed to determine, when installing an upgraded
component, whether said upgraded component provides
component capabilities required by the host components in said
catalog.

9. A dependency management method comprising the
steps of:
parsing a machine readable ReadMe file associated with
an upgraded component to an application to identify both data
and method dependencies of said upgraded component, and
interface prototype information regarding methods
implemented in said upgraded component; and,
prior to installing said upgraded component, ensuring
that said identified data and method dependencies can be
accessed by said upgraded component upon installation of said
upgraded component, and further ensuring that other

1
The Examiner objected to claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15-18 as dependent upon
a rejected base claim, but including allowable subject matter.
Appeal 2009-013963
Application 10/321,356

3
components which rely upon said methods implemented in said
upgraded component will not be affected by said installation in
consequence of changes reflected by said interface prototype
information.

Claims 1, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by “Eclipse Platform Update Packaging Conventions” Revision
Date: 06/14/2002 (“Eclipse Platform”).
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that Eclipse Platform describes “a
catalog of host components installed within a computing system”, as recited
in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Eclipse Platform describes
“parsing a machine readable ReadMe file associated with an upgraded
component to an application to identify both data and method dependencies
of said upgraded component, and interface prototype information regarding
methods implemented in said upgraded component”, as recited in claims 9
and 14?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action (“FOA”) and Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief presented in
response to the Answer.
Claim 1
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s finding that the feature
archive/manifest is a list of features that were already installed on the
computing system is inconsistent with the Eclipse Platform description.
App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3; see Ans. 4-5, 10-11 (citing Eclipse Platform pp. 4,
Appeal 2009-013963
Application 10/321,356

4
9). Appellants point out that Eclipse Platform describes: 1) feature archives
are placed on an update server for download and installation by the Eclipse
update manager; and 2) a plug-in dependency, if specified, is enforced by
the installation and update support at the time of installation. Reply Br. 3
(citing Eclipse Platform pp. 4, 9). The Examiner does not direct us to
sufficient factual support for finding that “it is believed that the feature
archive/manifest is a list of the features already installed on the computing
system.” Ans. 5.
Claims 9 and 14
The Examiner finds that Eclipse Platform does not specifically
disclose “parsing a machine readable ReadMe file associated with an
upgraded component to an application to identify both data and method
dependencies of said upgraded component . . .” as recited in claims 9 and 14.
Ans. 8. However, the Examiner asserts that in order to import the plugin.xml
file, the Eclipse Platform should necessarily be equipped with an xml parser
without which the plugin.xml file could not be read. Ans. 8; see Ans. 17.
The Examiner concludes that the parsing step to identify both the data (e.g.,
version attribute described at p. 9) and method dependencies (e.g., perfect,
equivalent, compatible or greaterOrEqual described at p. 9) is deemed
inherent in Eclipse Platform. Ans. 8; see Ans. 17. We agree with Appellants’
argument that the Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual basis to
support the finding that the xml parser to parse the feature.xml or plug-
in.xml files inherently identifies both the data and method dependencies of
the upgraded component. App. Br. 8-9.
Appeal 2009-013963
Application 10/321,356

5
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Eclipse.
REVERSED

ELD