Ex Parte Katariya et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201814266141 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/266,141 04/30/2014 Saransh Katariya 119741 7590 06/04/2018 Keller Jolley Preece / Adobe 1010 North 500 East, Suite 210 North Salt Lake, UT 84054 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. 20030.643 6378 EXAMINER LYONS, ANDREW M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): docketing@kjpip.com gjolley@kjpip.com tmeid@kjpip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SARANSH KATARIYA and MANSUKH PATIDAR Appeal2017-010873 Application 14/266, 141 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a method for notifying an enterprise administrator of new products and updates for one or more software packages installed on one or more end user devices. Specification, paragraph 4. Appeal2017-010873 Application 14/266, 141 Illustrative Claim 1. A computer implemented method comprising: receiving, at a first device of a network administrator from at least one server, a package history, a viewing history, and a list of new available products, wherein the package history is generated by the at least one server to indicate one or more software packages previously downloaded by the first device of the network administrator from the at least one server and bundled for installation to an organization; wherein the organization is encoded into the package history by the at least one server to indicate a plurality of end user devices, each end user device being remote from the first device of the network administrator, and each software package comprising one or more products, and wherein the viewing history indicates products previously provided for display to the network administrator of the first device; based on the viewing history, the package history indicating the one or more software packages previously downloaded by the first device from the at least one server and bundled for installation to the organization, and the list of new available products, providing for display to the user via the first device at least one new available product, wherein the at least one new available product has not previously been provided for display to the user; downloading the at least one new available product to the first device of the network administrator; bundling the at least one new available product to create a new software package for installation to the organization; and in response to bundling the at least one new available product to create a new software package for installation to the organization, updating 2 Appeal2017-010873 Application 14/266, 141 the package history by sending, from the first device of the network administrator, an indication to the at least one server that the at least one new available product was downloaded to the first device of the network administrator and bundled for installation to the organization. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-5 and 7-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being over Van Camp (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0131084 Al; published May 27, 2010), Badovinatz (US Patent 8,458,141 B2; issued June 4, 2013), Ronen (US Patent Application Publication 2007 /0234290 Al; published October 4, 2007) and Ferris (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0296000 Al; published December 1, 2011). Final Action 2-24. Claim 6 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being over Van Camp, Badovinatz, Ronen, Ferris and Vidal (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0055826 Al; published March 3, 2011). Final Action 24--25. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 23, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed July 17, 2017), the Answer (mailed May 19, 2017) and the Final Action (mailed August 25, 2016) for the respective details. Appellants contend, "the claims are directed to a network administrator device that receive, utilizes, and updates a package history encoded with an organization and one or more software packages previously downloaded by a network administrator device and bundled for installation to the organization" and "In this manner, the network administrator device can interact directly with one or more servers to maintain an updated 3 Appeal2017-010873 Application 14/266, 141 package history and notify a network administrator of new software updates." Appeal Brief 11. Appellants argue the Office Action fails to teach, suggest or describe the claimed invention because the cited art utilizes a different approach by gathering and reporting information regarding software usage by end users devices or cloud servers. Appeal Brief 11. Appellants argue that the references fail to address elements in claims 8 and 14 such as: [ A ]ny of the elements regarding the packaging user interface recited in the claims. In particular, the Office Action fails to analyze "wherein the packing user interface comprises the plurality of organizations encoded into the package history, the plurality of software packages, the one or more products for each software package, and the at least one new available product. Appeal Brief 13. Appellants also contend, "neither Van Camp nor Badovinatz teach, for example, receiving a package history at a first device of a network administrator that includes organization data or software previously downloaded by the first device and bundled for installation to the organization. Appeal Brief 17, see Final Action 7. Appellants contend that the "Office Action seeks to remedy the shortcomings of Van Camp and B adovinatz through the teachings of Ronen and Ferris." Appeal Brief 18, see Final Action 7-10. The Examiner finds that while the combination of Van Camp and Badovinatz does not teach the claimed package history indication, "Ronen does teach the package history indicating the one or more software packages previously downloaded by the first device from the at least one server and bundled for installation." Final Action 7 ( citing Ronen paragraphs 23-30). The Examiner further finds that "Van Camp in view of Badovinatz and Ronen does not teach that the package history includes one 4 Appeal2017-010873 Application 14/266, 141 or more organizations representing one or more end user devices, wherein that organization information can be correlated with packages." Final Action 8. The Examiner finds that "Ferris does teach: [wherein the package history ... indicate[s] ... ] an organization (Ferris, e.g., ,r,r 21, 28, 30)." Final Action 8. Appellants argue: Ronen teaches a component manager that can upload, search for, or download software components. Downloading or even updating software components is not equivalent to a package history encoded with an organization and indicating software products downloaded by a first device and bundled for installation to an organization. Indeed, Ronen is equivalent to conventional systems that simply download components directly to end user devices. Appeal Brief 18. Appellants further argue that: Probing individual cloud networks for usage history data and then gathering the usage history data, as taught by Ferris, is fundamentally different than a package history that is encoded with information indicating an organization and software packages downloaded by the first device of the network administrator and bundled for installation to the organization. Indeed, the usage history data taught by Ferris simply reflects usage of a particular cloud and does not encode an organization of end user devices. Nor does the usage history data indicate software packages previously downloaded by the first device of the network administrator from the at least one server and bundled for installation to the organization. Appeal Brief 18-19. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Claim 1 requires that "the organization is encoded into the package history." Appellants indicate that support for the claim limitation is found in paragraphs 20 and 72 of the Specification. Appeal Brief 1 ("Specifically, the remote server can 5 Appeal2017-010873 Application 14/266, 141 store a package history that encodes organization data and software products bundled and downloaded by the network administrator's computing device to the organization. Id. at [0020], [0072]."). The Specification only appears to have 64 paragraphs in total. Further, paragraph 20 1 does not define organizational encoding in a manner that would distinguish over Ronen' s teachings let alone the combination of Ronen and Ferris. Ronen discloses more than just downloading and updating, Ronen manages the software actively. Ronen discloses in paragraph 23: In certain embodiments, component manager 130 may implement further functionality including being operable to: i) support versions, feedback, updates; ii) notify client-side applications such that they become aware of updates that are available; iii) present a "try before you buy" option; iv) to control/charge for access and downloads; v) manage or present mega-catalog plus the ability to have site or customer-specific sub-catalogs; vi) provide a back-end to any of these catalogs for publishers, managers, reviewers; vii) optimize consumption process via analysis of information collected; viii) certify users that can rate and submit content/feedback; and ix) manage permissions for users and allow users to determine what access rights they have. Ferris further discloses in paragraph 21 security provisions to ensure that the end users are utilizing the software as they are entitled: In embodiments, the cloud management system 104 can further store, track and manage each user's identity and associated set of rights or entitlements to software, hardware, and other resources. 1 "Advantageously, the present invention may be implemented to interface with a software provider to notify administrators when new software products and updates are available for download. The interface tool frees the administrator from manual bookkeeping of software updates, saving the administrator time and providing a user-friendly experience." Specification, paragraph 20. 6 Appeal2017-010873 Application 14/266, 141 Each user that operates a virtual machine or service in the set of virtual machines in the cloud can have specific rights and resources assigned and made available to them, with associated access rights and security provisions. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Subsequently, we agree with the Examiner's findings and sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 14, as well as dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-13 and 15-20 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 20-21. In regard to claim 6, Appellants argue that Vidal fails to remedy the deficiency of the Van Camp, Badovinatz, Ronen and Ferris combination because: Vidal relates to a system for increasing the utility of electronic wish lists. Id., Abstract. The Office Action cites to Vidal's teaching regarding a name of a software package, a version of a software package, or a list of software programs. See Office Action at 25. Appeal Brief 21. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because we did not find the combination deficient. Also, Appellants fail to indicate why Vidal does not address or disclose the subject matter claimed of claim 6. Merely reciting language of the claims and asserting the cited prior art reference does not teach or suggest the claim limitation is insufficient. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 7 Appeal2017-010873 Application 14/266, 141 DECISION The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed. 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 ). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(v). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation