Ex Parte Peters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

11398001 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111398,001 0410512006 Christopher Peters
33438 7590 09/01/2016
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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.
DC-09876 6076
EXAMINER
AMIN, MUSTAFAA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHRISTOPHER PETERS, SEAN-MARC CASTRUITA, and
JOHN LANDRY1
Appeal2015-002345
Application 11/398,001
Technology Center 2100
Before, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14, and 18, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Dell Products L.P. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002345
Application 11/398,001
Bii~CKGROlJJ\.JD
The disclosed invention relates to a method of sharing logic using
extensible stylesheet language (XSL ). Spec. 3, 11. 7-17; Abstract.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method for sharing logic among a plurality of entities
compnsmg:
storing the logic using an extensible stylesheet language
(XSL) standard as an XSL logic document, the logic
being stored on a computer readable storage medium,
the logic being shared among the plurality of entities;
distributing the XSL logic document to the plurality of
entities via the computer readable storage medium;
importing, via an information handling system accessing
the computer readable storage medium, the XSL logic
document into entity specific software applications of
respective entities of the plurality of entities, the entity
specific software applications being independent of
the XSL logic document, each entity specific software
application including a transform portion for
translating the XSL logic document into a language of
the entity specific software application; and wherein
the entity specific software applications of the respective
entities receive inputs and provide outputs in a format
consistent with the XSL logic document;
the XSL logic document is provided by a single entity
and the single entity is the only point of contact for
maintenance of the logic;
the single entity is an information handling system
manufacturer; and
the XSL logic document enables an independent software
vendor to build change management solutions.
2
Appeal2015-002345
Application 11/398,001
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramamoorthy et al. (US 2005/0091068 Al;
published Apr. 28, 2005) ("Ramamoorthy"), Salter et al. (US 2004/00107 53
A 1; published Jan. 15, 2004) ("Salter"), Oh (US 2004/0128617 A 1;
published July 1, 2004), Brandt et al. (US 2006/0143093 Al; published June
29, 2006) ("Brandt"), Deblaquiere et al. (US 2006/0184927 Al; published
Aug. 17, 2006) ("Deblaquiere"), and Lo et al. (US 6,854,120 Bl; issued Feb.
8, 2005) ("Lo").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief, and the Examiner's Answer. We disagree
with Appellants' conclusions, and agree with, and adopt as our own, the
Examiner's findings and conclusions of law. Specific findings and
arguments are highlighted and addressed below for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Ramamoorthy does not disclose or suggest a
method for sharing logic among a plurality of entities. See Br. 4. Appellants
contend that Ramamoorthy instead discloses sharing data. See id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because the
arguments do not explain sufficiently why Ramanoorthy's teaching of a
device-agnostic policy implementation or XML document (see Final Act. 3
(citing Ramamoorthy i-fi-12-8, 16, 20-25)) fails to teach logic. For example,
Appellants do not direct us to objective evidence to demonstrate that the
broadest reasonable meaning in light of Appellants' Specification of the
term "logic" precludes a policy implementation or policy document. Having
reviewed the claim in light of the evidence of record, we agree with the
3
Appeal2015-002345
Application 11/398,001
Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "logic"
includes a policy or policies. See Ans. 4 (citing Ramamoorthy i-fi-122-33).
Appellants also argue Ramamoorthy does not disclose or suggest
importing XSL logic document into entity specific software applications of
respective entities of the plurality of entities, and further does not disclose or
suggest an entity specific software application including a transform portion
for translating the XSL logic document into a language of the entity specific
software application. See Br. 5. Appellants assert that Ramamoorthy
discloses importing an XML document into a translator which is built using
XSL for each type of policy and specific vendor or device. See id. (citing
Ramamoorthy i120). Appellants' arguments are misplaced because the
Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Ramamoorthy and Salter, not
Ramamoorthy alone, to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. One cannot
show non-obviousness by analyzing a reference individually, as Appellants
have done here, where the rejection is based on a combination of references.
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We
agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's finding that one with
ordinary skill in the art would recognize Ramamoorthy' s disclosure of a
custom policy 129 imported through a translator to properly configure the
operating system 128 teaches or suggests a logic document (e.g., custom
policy 129) is imported into entity specific software applications (e.g.,
operating system or device) of respective entities of a the plurality of entities
(e.g., a plurality of devices). See Ans. 5 (citing Ramamoorthy i-f 19); Final
Act. 4 (citing Ramamoorthy i-fi-f 19-34; claim 18). We further agree with,
and adopt as our own, the Examiner's finding that Ramamoorthy teaches
using an XML document instead of an XSL document to distribute the
4
Appeal2015-002345
Application 11/398,001
policies/logic. See ,LA~ns. 5; Final ,LA~ct. 5. \X/e also agree \x1ith, and adopt as
our own, the finding that one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that Ramamoorthy's teaching that the XML file is translated, using the XSL
file to produce a corresponding Java API, teaches or suggests a transform
portion (e.g., XSL transform) for translating the logic document (e.g.,
markup document containing policy logic) into a language (e.g., Java) of the
entity specific (e.g., device specific or operating system specific) software
application. See Ans. 6 (citing Ramamoorthy i-fi-121-25). Lastly, we agree
with, and adopt as our own the Examiner's finding that one with ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that an
XSL logic document, such as taught be Salter, could substitute for the XML
policy document of Ramamoorthy for the purpose of having a device
agnostic document or standard to distribute logic to different devices as
disclosed by Ramamoorthy. See id. at 5---6 (citing Ramamoorthy i1 6); Final
Act. 5 (citing Salter i-fi-1 56, 66, 77, 84, 86; Ramamoorthy i1 6).
Appellants argue that Salter does not disclose or suggest the entity
specific software applications of the respective entities receive inputs and
provide outputs in a format consistent with the XSL document, and where
the XSL document is provided by a single entity, that is the only point of
contact for maintenance of the logic. See Br. 5. Appellants' arguments are
misplaced because the Examiner does not rely on Salter alone to teach or
suggest the aforementioned limitations. See Final Act. 4---6; Merck, 800 F .2d
at 1097. Instead, the Examiner relies on Ramamoorthy, and alternatively
Lo, for teaching entity specific applications receive inputs and provide
outputs in a format consistent with the logic (see Final Act. 4 (citing
Ramamoorthy i-fi-120-25; Lo 2:6-48)), in combination with Salter's teaching
5
Appeal2015-002345
Application 11/398,001
of an XSL logic document (see id. at 5 (citing Salter i-fi-156, 66, 77, 84, 86)),
and in combination with Oh's teaching of a single entity cable network
company responsible for maintaining an XML based template and XSL
document (see id. at 5---6 (citing Oh i-fi-131-39, Figs. 2, 6)). See also Ans. 7-9
(discussing the combined teachings of the references). For these same
reasons, we also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
Br. 6.
nowhere within Lo or Oh, taken alone or in combination, is
there any disclosure or suggestion of entity specific software
applications of the respective entities receive inputs and provide
outputs in a format consistent with the XSL logic document,
much less where the XSL logic document (i.e., the document in
which the logic to be shared among a plurality of entities is
stored) is provided by a single entity and the single entity is the
only point of contact for maintenance of the logic, as required
by claims 1, 7, and 13.
Lastly, Appellants argue that Oh does not disclose or suggest the
single entity being an information handling system manufacturer, and the
XSL logic enables an independent software vendor to build change
management solutions, as required by claims 1, 7, and 13. See Br. 6-7.
Appellants' arguments are misplaced because the Examiner does not rely on
Oh alone to teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations. See Final Act.
4---6; Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Instead, the Examiner relies on Oh's
teachings of a cable network company to teach or suggest an information
handling system manufacturer (see Final Act. 5---6 (citing Oh i-fi-1 31-3 9) ), in
combination with Brandt's teachings of an XSL document that enables
building change management solutions (see id. at 6-7 (citing Brandt i-fi-1 93-
99) ), and in combination with Deblaquiere' s teachings of independent
6
Appeal2015-002345
Application 11/398,001
soft\vare vendors (see id. at 7 (citing Deblaquiere i-fi-143, 64---66, Fig. 1)). See
also Ans. 9-10 (discussing the combined teachings of the references).
For all these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, and 13, and dependent claims 2, 6, 8, 12, 14, and
18, not argued separately (see Br. 7), as unpatentable over the applied
references.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12-14, and 18.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7