Ex Parte Kasravi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201310375331 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KAS KASRAVI and BHUPENDRA N. PATEL ____________________ Appeal 2011-001513 Application 10/375,331 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001513 Application 10/375,331 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-7, 9-24, and 26-27, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 8 and 25 have been cancelled. We REVERSE. THE INVENTION The Appellants invented a system and method for software reuse involving searching a library of software profiles for similarity with a user formulated profile for desired software. Specification ¶ 0001. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A method of identifying existing software components for reuse, comprising: maintaining a library of existing software profiles for corresponding existing software components, each existing software profile including a set of attributes associated with an existing software component, and each existing software profile created from a semantic analysis of the corresponding existing software component, the semantic analysis based at least in part on a software classification system, and wherein the set of attributes included in each of the existing software profiles is according to at least a first software taxonomy; creating a profile for desired software, the desired software profile defining a conceptualized software component and comprising a set of search criteria associated with the library of existing software profiles, wherein the search criteria 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed June 14, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 4, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 3, 2010), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed January 13, 2010). Appeal 2011-001513 Application 10/375,331 3 include attributes according to a second software taxonomy different from the at least first software taxonomy; searching, by at least one processor, the library of existing software profiles to identify one or more existing software profiles similar to the desired software profile; identifying, by the at least one processor, one or more existing software components associated with the one or more similar existing software profiles identified in the search; and providing said identified one or more existing software components to a user. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Allen Johnson Carlson U.S. 5,581,664 U.S. 6,081,798 U.S. 7,149,734 B2 Dec. 3, 1996 Jun. 27, 2000 Dec. 12, 2006 Kannenberg U.S. 2003/0158760 A1 Aug. 21, 2003 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 15, 16, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kannenberg and Carlson. Claims 3-5, 9-13, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kannenberg, Carlson, and Allen. Claims 6, 7, 22, 23, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kannenberg, Carlson, and Johnson. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kannenberg, Carlson, Allen, and Johnson. Appeal 2011-001513 Application 10/375,331 4 ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred turns on whether Kannenberg teaches or suggests searching a library of existing software profiles (each including a set of attributes according to at least a first taxonomy) to identify one or more existing software profiles similar to a desired software profile including attributes according to a second software taxonomy different from the at least first software taxonomy, as per claim 1. ANALYSIS The Appellants contend that Kannenberg fails to teach or suggest searching a library of existing software profiles (each including a set of attributes according to at least a first taxonomy) to identify one or more existing software profiles similar to a desired software profile including attributes according to a second software taxonomy different from the at least first software taxonomy. (emphasis in original). App. Br. 8. The Appellants specifically contend that Kannenberg only describes a single taxonomy and therefore a first and second taxonomy are not used to identify a software profile. App. Br. 8-11 and Reply Br. 1-6. We agree with the Appellants. Kannenberg describes a computer system for insurance transaction processing. Kannenberg ¶ 0054. Kannenberg describes that a user can create a project and/or reuse an existing project. Kannenberg ¶¶ 0133 and 0148. A user enters a search term and the computer system searches for a project or business rule based on the entered search term. Kannenberg ¶ 0142. While this suggests that Kannenberg describes a first taxonomy, Kannenberg does not describe Appeal 2011-001513 Application 10/375,331 5 “search criteria [that] include[s] attributes according to a second software taxonomy different from the at least first software taxonomy,” as recited by claim 1. The Examiner responds that Kannenberg describes different attributes for different projects and the modification of a project allows a user to modify one or more fields. Ans. 14-15. However, the Examiner has not provided any rationale or evidence to illustrate why the mere existence of additional attributes or fields is the same as a second taxonomy that is different from the first taxonomy. The Examiner also found that if no suitable match for an entered search exists, this is exemplary of a second taxonomy that is different from a first taxonomy. Ans. 4. However, we do not agree with the Examiner that the absence of a suitable match for an entered search is the same as a second taxonomy that is different from the first. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claims 15 and 24 recite similar limitations and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-23, and 26-27 incorporate these features and we do not sustain the rejection of those claims for the same reasons discussed supra. Since this issue is dispositive as to the rejections against these claims, we need not reach the remaining arguments presented by the Appellants. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-24, and 26-27. Appeal 2011-001513 Application 10/375,331 6 DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows: The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-24, and 26-27 is reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation