Ex Parte Masselle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2014

11424955 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC L. MASSELLE and WILLIAM G. PAGAN
____________

Appeal 2012-002105
Application 11/424,955
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–7, 9–13, and 15–17. Claims 8 and 14 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2012-002105
Application 11/424,955

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention “relates to the field of application installation
and uninstallation in a file system, and more particularly to file identification
in an uninstallation process.” (Spec. ¶ 1.) Claim 6 illustrates the claimed
subject matter:
6. A method for file system integrated uninstallation,
comprising:
selecting a file through a file system user interface;
identifying a creator application for the selected file;
listing the creator application in a menu view associated
with the selected file;
identifying a plurality of accessing applications that have
previously accessed the selected file; and
rendering a listing of the accessing applications in the
menu view.
REJECTION
Claims 1–7, 9–13, and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Balabine (US 5,937,406; Aug. 10, 1999), Hind (US
2004/0060045 Al; Mar. 25, 2004), and Mastrianni (US 2002/0178436 Al;
Nov. 28, 2002).
ISSUES
Appellants’ briefing presents the following two issues:
(1) Does the proposed combination of Balabine, Hind, and Mastrianni
teach or suggest “identifying a plurality of accessing applications that have
previously accessed the selected file” as recited in claim 6?
(2) Does the proposed combination of Balabine, Hind, and Mastrianni
teach or suggest “file associations manager logic . . . enabled [to] determine
Appeal 2012-002105
Application 11/424,955

3
and store file ownership and access data for every file in the file system in a
uniform way” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 6: “Identifying a Plurality of Accessing Applications that Have
Previously Accessed the Selected File”
The Examiner found a combination of Balabine and Hind disclosed
most of the limitations recited in claim 6, but the Examiner conceded neither
reference explicitly disclosed the “identifying” limitation at issue. (Ans. 5–
6.) However, the Examiner found Mastrianni taught “tracking/storing
relationships between accessing programs and accessed files in a data
processing system.” (Id. at 6.) The Examiner also found Mastrianni
suggested searching this “association information” by application or file
name. (See id. at 6, 11–12.) In light of these findings, among others, the
Examiner determined it would have been obvious to modify the Balabine-
Hind combination “to use Mastrianni’s stored accessing information . . . to
identify the association[s] between accessing applications and files.” (Id.)
The Examiner explained “[o]ne would have been motivated to do so to
dynamically discover[] [the] relationship between applications and
associated data/files as suggested by Mastrianni.” (Id. (citing Mastrianni
¶ 66).)
Appellants contend the Examiner mischaracterized the scope and
content of Mastrianni. (App. Br. 8–11.) According to Appellants,
Mastrianni does not teach identifying different applications that have
accessed a single file, (id. at 9–11), or storing associations “as meta-data
[that] provide a means to particularly associate multiple applications with a
single file.” (Reply Br. at 3.) To the extent the Examiner found Mastrianni
Appeal 2012-002105
Application 11/424,955

4
inherently taught the recited “identifying” step, Appellants argue the
Examiner has failed to provide the necessary findings and reasoning to
support an inherency finding. (Reply Br. at 4–5.)
We agree with the Examiner. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the
Examiner neither mischaracterized Mastrianni nor found Mastrianni
implicitly taught the disputed “identifying” limitation. Rather, the Examiner
correctly found Mastrianni taught tracking and storing relationships between
programs and accessed files, including relationships between multiple
applications and a single file. For example, the cited portion of Mastrianni
describes updating a file’s metadata to reflect an association between a file
and applications that have “perform[ed] activity against [the] file”:
If the user copies file 304 to another location, the
relational meta data for file 304 is updated with the new
location. If multiple applications perform activity against file
304, the relational meta data for file 304 is updated to reflect
the association to multiple applications.

(Mastrianni ¶ 38 (emphasis added).) The Examiner also correctly found
Mastrianni suggested searching this information by either application or file
name. As determined by the Examiner, Mastrianni teaches storing in a
database the names of both files and applications that have accessed those
files, and searching the database using “application name as well as criteria.”
(See, e.g., Mastrianni ¶¶ 45-46.) Given the context of Mastrianni’s
invention—namely, tracking and storing relationships between applications
and files in database for subsequent access (see, e.g., Mastrianni ¶ 9)—we
agree it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to search the
database by either application name or filename. To conclude otherwise
would be to ignore common sense and the “inferences and creative steps that
Appeal 2012-002105
Application 11/424,955

5
a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Given these findings and the unchallenged teachings of Balabine and
Hind, the Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to combine the
cited art in the claimed manner. (Ans. 6). Appellants’ challenges to
Mastrianni alone have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in this regard.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”) Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of clam 6.
Claim 1: “File Associations Manager Logic . . . Enabled [to] Determine and
Store File Ownership and Access Data for Every File in the File System in a
Uniform Way”
In the Answer, the Examiner found the cited art suggested claim 1,
particularly noting Balabine disclosed “determining/identifying/storing
ownership . . . access data . . . in the file system . . . in a
uniform way.” (See Ans. 12–13.) Appellants argue this finding constitutes a
new basis for rejecting claim 1. (Reply Br. 6.) Moreover, Appellants argue
Balabine “hardly suffices for the specifically claimed teaching of
determining and storing file ownership and access data for every file in the
file system in a uniform way.” (Id. at 7 (emphases removed).)
We again agree with the Examiner. Regarding Appellants’ contention
the Examiner improperly presented a new ground of rejection in the Answer,
such arguments are reviewable by petition, not by appeal. See MPEP
§ 1002.02; Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1077-78 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). As for Appellants’ argument Balabine does not teach the
Appeal 2012-002105
Application 11/424,955

6
disputed limitation, Appellants have not explained why the cited portions of
Balabine fail to disclose this limitation. Simply contending the cited art does
not teach a claim limitation is insufficient to preserve such an argument for
appeal. Cf. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319-20 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). In any event, after reviewing the Examiner’s findings, we are
not persuaded the findings are erroneous. We therefore sustain the rejection
of claim 1.
DECISION
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1
and 6. Because Appellants have not argued claims 2–5, 7, 9–13, and 15–17
separately, we also sustain the rejections of these claims. We thus AFFIRM
the rejection of claims 1–7, 9–13, and 15–17 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).
AFFIRMED

tj