Ex Parte Sanghvi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 3, 2019

14485891 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/485,891 09/15/2014
69316 7590 06/05/2019
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ashvinkumar J. Sanghvi
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.
320100-US-CNT 5233
EXAMINER
MOISE, EMMANUEL LIONEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2019 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHVINKUMAR J. SANGHVI,
CASEY McKINNON, JENS K. JACOBSEN,
KRISTOFFER S. SCHULTZ, and
THOMAS WILLIAM KEANE
Appeal 2018-003 269
Application 14/485,891 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, AARON W. MOORE, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITT A, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 21--40, all pending claims of the application. 2 See
Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. See Appeal Brief 1.
2 Claims 1-20 are cancelled. See Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix, Al.
Appeal2018-003269
Application 14/485,891
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to a "unified service management system
[that] provides a unified console to perform functions of individual
management specialists. [The] unified console facilitates an administrator to
perform the complex tasks that were performed by the individual
management specialists." Spec. Abstract 1:28-29. 3
Illustrative Claim
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are independent. Claim 21 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with the limitation at issue
emphasized:
21. A method performed using a unified console
implemented by one or more management servers that are
coupled to one or more managed nodes via a network, the method
compnsmg:
receiving input from a user, via the unified console,
defining an application model that includes rules for
development of an application before the application is written;
applying constraints specified by the application model,
by one or more processors in at least one of the one or more
management servers, to guide the development of the application
in accordance with the rules; and
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
September 15, 2014 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.")
mailed September 28, 2016; (3) the Appeal Brief filed March 20, 2017
("Appeal Br."); (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed December 6,
2017; and (5) the Reply Brief filed February 4, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-003269
Application 14/485,891
managing a life cycle of the application based on the
application model.
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix, Al.
REFERENCE AND REJECTION
Claims 21--40 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Goodman et al. (US 2006/0059253 Al, published Mar. 16,
2006) ("Goodman"). See Final Act. 2-13.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
ANALYSIS
Issue: The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner errs in
finding Goodman discloses "receiving input from a user, via the unified
console, defining an application model that includes rules for development
of an application before the application is written," as recited in illustrative
claim 21.
The Examiner finds Goodman's "process model and process modeling
tools" disclose "an application model" (Final Act. 3 ( citing Goodman
,r 379)), and Goodman's "enterprise management console (EMC) 842" and
applications program interface (API) 840 disclose "receiving input from a
user, via the unified console" (Ans. 5 (citing Goodman ,r 738)), as recited in
claim 21 .
3
Appeal2018-003269
Application 14/485,891
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Goodman discloses the
limitations at issue because "Goodman does not indicate that input defining
the process model is received from a user via the EMC 842, as suggested in
the Office Action." Appeal Br. 8. That is, Appellants argue the claim
requires the input received from the user is an input that defines the claimed
application model and "nothing in Goodman mentions anything about
'receiving input from a user, via the unified console, defining' the process
model, as suggested in the Office Action." Id.
The Examiner, citing Goodman's paragraph 738, indicates
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. See Ans. 6. Goodman's paragraph
738 describes EMC 842 as follows:
The enterprise management console (EMC) 842
subcomponent provides a centralized user interface to view and
manage a client/server or distributed environment. The EMC
842 may tie all the operations management tools to a common
user interface to allow administrators to proactively and
remotely manage a whole environment from a single point.
The EMC 842 may also be customized to the preferences of the
administrator.
Goodman ,r 738 (emphases added).
The Examiner explains that "'[t]he whole environment' that Goodman
refers to [in paragraph 738] comprises, as per at least [0023], the
development process framework layer," and for this reason the Examiner
finds EMC 842 must be used as an interface to Goodman's process model.
Ans. 6.
Appellants contest this finding, arguing Goodman's netcentric
computing system discloses separate systems having distinct architectures-
i.e., "an execution architecture, a development architecture, and an
4
Appeal2018-003269
Application 14/485,891
operations architecture." Reply Br. 3 ( citing Goodman abstract). Appellants
further argue that EMC 842 is only used as an interface for "operations
integration architecture components" but not for development architecture as
alleged by the Examiner and "nothing in paragraph [0023] of Goodman
indicates that the EMC 842 described therein manages the development
tools framework layer, as the Examiner contends." Reply 3--4.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings are not
supported by persuasive evidence. "[ A ]n invention is anticipated if the same
device, including all the claim limitations, is shown in a single prior art
reference. Every element of the claimed invention must be literally present,
arranged as in the claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d
1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).
On this record, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
sufficiently demonstrated that API 840 or EMC 842 act as a user interface to
define input to either of Goodman's process model or process modeling
tools 702. For example, the portion of Goodman relied on by the Examiner
indicates that "EMC 842 may tie all the operations management tools to a
common user interface" but is silent regarding development architecture or
process models. Goodman ,r 738 (emphasis added); see also id. at ,r 733
("The application program interface (API) 840 subcomponent ... allow[s]
operations management components to communicate with each other").
Alternatively, the Examiner finds "[p ]aragraphs [O 185] and [O 186] of
Goodman teach one model (v-model), comprising rules for application
development that may be selected by a user via enterprise management
console 842 via user interface (as per at least [0733])." Final Act. 9; Ans. 7.
5
Appeal2018-003269
Application 14/485,891
Appellants respond that "Goodman does not mention anything about
input that defines the V-model being received from a user via a unified
console. Moreover, nothing in Goodman mentions anything about the V-
model including rules for development of an application before the
application is written." Reply Br. 6.
On this record, we find Appellants' arguments persuasive. We find
nothing in paragraphs 185 and 186 of Goodman indicating that API 840 or
EMC 842 act as a user interface to Goodman's V-model.
Therefore, we find the Examiner has not explained sufficiently how
Goodman discloses "receiving input from a user, via the unified console,
defining an application model," as recited in claim 21.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellants for claim 21, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, based on the record before us,
we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent
claim 1. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims
28 and 35, which recite similar limitations, nor the rejections of the
remaining dependent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 21--40 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
REVERSED
6