Ex Parte Rummler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

13958944 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/958,944 08/05/2013
32864 7590 09/26/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andreas Rummler
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.
13913-0707001 I
130477US
CONFIRMATION NO.
1016
EXAMINER
AGUILERA, TODD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS RUMMLER AND TOBIAS NESTLER
Appeal2018-000483
Application 13/958,944
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, MATTEHW J. McNEILL, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-20. App. Br. 6. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 Appellants state that the real party interest is SAP SE. App Br. 4.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 24, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed October 19, 2017, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
September 8, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed May 11, 2017, "Final
Act.)," and the Specification (filed January 20, 2015, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
Appeal2018-000483
Application 13/958,944
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to an application implemented to support concurrent
activities in distributed development processes. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A computer-implemented method for supporting
concurrent activities in distributed development processes, the
method being executed using one or more processors and
compnsmg:
providing, by the one or more processors, source code for
display to a first developer within an integrated development
environment (IDE);
receiving, by the one or more processors, first status
information associated with the source code, the first status
information being received in response to a determination that a
second developer is concurrently viewing and editing at least a
portion of the source code using the IDE, being based on
contextual and semantic information that is specific to a
programming language of the source code, identifying which
portion of the source code is being edited and reflecting a first
status of the at least the portion of the source code;
processing, by the one or more processors, the first status
information to provide first collaboration information that
indicates the at least the portion of the source code being edited
by the second developer;
providing, by the one or more processors, the first
collaboration information for display to the first developer, the
IDE enabling the first developer to selectively edit the source
code concurrently with the second developer in view of the first
collaboration information; and
2
Appeal2018-000483
Application 13/958,944
providing, by the one or more processors and based on the
first developer editing the source code concurrently with the
second developer, a notification for display to the second
developer within the source code reflecting activities of the first
developer and a second status of the source code.
References and Rejections
Hegde, et al., ("Hegde '321") US 2007/0283321 Al Dec. 6, 2007
Hegde, et al., ("Hegde '235") US 2008/0005235 Al Jan.3,2008
Biehl, et al., US 2008/0209387 Al Aug.28,2008
Arthurs, et al., US 2009/0254538 Al Oct. 8, 2009
DeLuca, et al., US 2013/0247004 Al Sept.19,2013
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hedge '235, Biehl, and Hegde '321. Final
Act. 6-20.
2. Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hedge '235, Biehl, Hegde '321, and DeLuca. Final
Act. 20-21.
3. Claims 1--4, 6-8, 10-16, and 18-20 stand rejected alternatively under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hedge '235,
Arthurs, and Hegde '321. Final Act. 21-29.
4. Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected alternatively under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hedge '235, Arthurs, Hegde '321,
and Biehl. Final Act. 29.
3
Appeal2018-000483
Application 13/958,944
5. Claim 9 stands rejected alternatively under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hedge '235, Arthurs, Hegde '321, and
DeLuca. Final Act. 29.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-20 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Upon
consideration of the arguments presented in Appellants' Briefs, we agree
with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable. We adopt as
our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this
appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, to the extent consistent with
our analysis below. We provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We
consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal
Brief, pages 12-16.
CLAIMS 1-20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
HEDGE '235, BIEHL, AND HEGDE '321.
Appellants assert that claims 1, 12, and 13 each recite, inter alia:
4
Appeal2018-000483
Application 13/958,944
receiving ... first status information associated with the source
code, the first status information being received in response to a
determination that a second developer is concurrently viewing
and editing at least a portion of the source code using the IDE,
being based on contextual and semantic information that is
specific to a programming language of the source code,
identifying which portion of the source code is being edited and
reflecting a first status of the at least the portion of the source
code,and
providing ... , based on the first developer editing the source
code concurrently with the second developer, a notification for
display to the second developer within the source code
reflecting activities of the first developer and a second status of
the source code.
App. Br. 12. Appellants contend the combination of Hegde '235, Biehl, and
Hegde '321 fails to teach or render obvious at least these recitations of
claims 1, 12, and 13. Id.
First Status Information.
The Examiner finds Hegde '235 teaches receiving the claimed first
status information (Final Act. 7), but fails to teach that the first status
information is based on contextual and semantic information that is specific
to a programming language of the source code. Id. at 9. The Examiner finds
Biehl teaches the missing semantic and context information specific to a
programming language. Id. at 9--10 ( citing Biehl ,r,r 22, 31, and 40).
Appellants contend the information monitored by Biehl differs from
the claimed "contextual and semantic information." App. Br. 14.
Appellants argue Biehl teaches a plug-in determines whether a file has been
checked-out by a developer and uses hash signatures to determine whether
the file has been changed. Id. Appellants further argue Biehl teaches the
5
Appeal2018-000483
Application 13/958,944
plug-in provides an indication that a developer has the file in focus within
the software development platform. Id.
That a software developer focuses on a specific file within a software
development platform implies the source code of the specific programming
language used by the software development platform provides a semantic
context. Appellants' argument merely implies the specific semantic and
contextual information, taught by Biehl, differs from that which is claimed.
The Examiner finds the only Specification description of contextual and
semantic information is as being "particular to the programming language of
the code artifact" being edited and "such that the artifact observer can
determine that a method, or a class are being edited." Ans. 3 (citing Spec.,
if 32).
Appellants argue Biehl's monitored information "is different than
'contextual and semantic information,' as defined in [the] claims." Reply
Br. 2. Appellants' argument fails because Appellants point to neither the
claims, nor their Specification, for a definition of the claimed "first status
information." Nor do Appellants provide evidence that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would know what information was encompassed by and
excluded from first status information.
Providing a Notification.
Appellants contend "providing, by the one or more processors and
based on the first developer editing the source code concurrently with the
second developer, a notification for display to the second developer within
the source code reflecting activities of the first developer and a second status
of the source code," as recited in the independent claims, is not taught by the
combined art. App. Br. 15. Appellants agree with the Examiner's finding
6
Appeal2018-000483
Application 13/958,944
that Hegde '235 and Biehl fail to so teach, but disagree that Hegde '321 so
teaches. Id. Appellants argue Hegde '321 sends a notification of a potential
conflict upon indication that a change is being made to a program element
previously edited, but that this differs from providing a notification based
upon concurrent editing of the source code by the first and second
developers, as claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds the Hegde '321 teaches the required concurrency.
Ans. 5 (quoting Hegde '321, ,r 63) ("Bob could look at Alice's user-tile 806
to realize she is editing a method he intends to call. However, Bob is not
expecting a conflict, so he does not look at it. As soon as he starts editing
the constructor, however, a potential conflict is detected and a conflict
notification may be sent to Bob and Alice.").
Appellants argue that Hegde '321 teaches "concurrently" in a sense
that differs from the one claimed. Appellants argue that Hegde '321 teaches
that two different portions of source code may be modified simultaneously,
but that the claims require two developers to attempt simultaneous
modification of the same portion of source code. Reply Br. 3--4.
We are not persuaded the claims must be read as narrowly as
Appellants contend. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent Claims 1, 12, and 13.
CLAIMS 2-10, 11, AND 14--20
Appellants contend DeLuca fails to cure the deficiencies of Hegde
'235, Biehl, and Hegde '321. App. Br. 16.
Because we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred with respect to
the independent claims, we are not persuaded of the patentability of the
independent claims.
7
Appeal2018-000483
Application 13/958,944
DECISION
The rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8