12849026 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

Ex Parte Minov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 2016

12849026 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/849,026 08/03/2010 62730 7590 09/21/2016 SAP SE 3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94304 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR JASENMINOV 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. 2010P00165US 7040 EXAMINER STITT, ERIK V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2016 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): APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM GIPinhouse@sap.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASEN MINOV and ST ANIMIR EISNER Appeal2015-003070 Application 12/849,026 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 9, and 11 through 20. We reverse. Appeal2015-003070 Application 12/849,026 INVENTION The invention is directed to a system for automatic context passing during management application navigation. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. An article of manufacture including a non- transitory computer readable storage medium to tangibly store instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to: receive a user action to navigate to a second management application from a first management application; collect one or more managed entities in the first management application, wherein the one or more managed entities are at least one of an application and a service; define one or more related entities, comprising entities related to the one or more managed entities to populate a managed entity context, wherein the one or more related entities are defined through entity relations registered by one or more dedicated managed beans (MBeans ), the one or more dedicated r\1Beans comprising an attribute sho\~1ing the entity relations; retrieve one or more context entities from the managed entity context, the one or more context entities recognizable by the second management application; and apply the retrieved one or more context entities in the second management application. REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 3, 5 through 9, and 11 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Conor (US 7,457,807 B2; Nov. 25, 2008), Corneille et al. (US 2005/0075115 Al; Apr. 2 Appeal2015-003070 Application 12/849,026 7, 2005) and Pombo et al. (US 2011/0153465; June 23, 2011). Final Act. 4- 10.1 ANALYSIS Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 recite a limitation directed to defining one or more related entities, related to management entities where the related entities defined through entity relations registered by one or more dedicated managed beans (MBeans ), where the MBeans comprise an attribute showing the entity relations. Appellants argue that neither O'Conor, Corneille, nor Pombo teach MBeans showing the attribute relations for the related entities as claimed. App. Br 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner responds finding that O'Conner teaches related entities and that Pombo teaches use of MBeans. Answer 4-5. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection and response to Appellants' arguments and do not consider the Examiner to have presented sufficient evidence and provided sufficient explanation to show that O'Conner, Corneille, and Pombo, combined, teach using MBeans showing the attribute relations for the related entities as claimed. Thus, we concur with Appellants and do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 13, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 through 20. 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated July 1, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief dated January 19, 2015 ("Reply Br."), the Final Office Action mailed March 7, 2014 ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed on November 20, 2014 ("Answer"). 3 Appeal2015-003070 Application 12/849,026 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1through3, 5 through 9, and 11through20. REVERSED 4