Ex Parte Sanjar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2013

11109069 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/109,069 04/19/2005 Amir Farrokh Sanjar AUS920040974US1 9297
45993 7590 07/31/2013
IBM CORPORATION (RHF)
C/O ROBERT H. FRANTZ
P. O. BOX 23324
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73123
EXAMINER
YIGDALL, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AMIR FAROKH SANJOR, NESBITT ULLMANN,
and PAUL STUART WILLAIMSON
____________

Appeal 2010-009272
Application 11/109,069
1

Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MARC S. HOFF, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant(s) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 8, 22, and 23.
2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
2
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-009272
Application 11/109,069

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a system for configuring interfaces between
system solution components and component behaviors. Each connection or
interface between system components that is defined by a user results in the
display of a prompt to select a basic, automatic, or advanced mode of
defining interface parameters and component configuration options
(Abstract).
Independent claim 8, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
8. A computer-implemented method for configuring interfaces
between system solution components and component behaviors comprising:
defining under user control of a system solution design tool portion of
a computing platform one or more instances of system solution components
in a computer readable memory, and defining in a computer readable
memory one or more interfaces between two or more of said instances of
system solution components;
responsive to said user’s definition of an interface, prompting said
user on a display of a computing platform by offering at three or more
Deployment Descriptor definition methods relating to levels of expertise of
said user regarding configuration and deployment of said two or more
system solution components for which an interface has been defined, at least
one of said levels of expertise comprising a low expertise option which is
keyed to a pre-defined configurable Deployment Descriptor file for which
said subsequent prompts are restricted to basic configuration options, at least
one of said levels comprising a no-expertise option which is keyed to a pre-
defined configurable Deployment Descriptor file in which pre-defined
configuration parameters relate to a most common configuration of said
system solution components between which an interface has been defined by
said user, and at least one of said levels comprising a high expertise option
which is keyed to a pre-defined configurable Deployment Descriptor file for
which said subsequent prompts allow a high degree of configurability and
definition of said components;
receiving by a computing platform one or more choice inputs from
said user responsive to said offering and one or more subsequent prompts;
Appeal 2010-009272
Application 11/109,069

3
responsive to said receipt of inputs, loading by a computing platform
three or more pre-defined configurable Deployment Descriptor files from
computer readable memory, each of which being associated with one of said
offered expertise levels, at least one of said loaded files comprising a
partially configured extensible markup language file associated with said
low expertise level, a partially configured extensible markup language file
associated with said no-expertise level, and a highly configurable extensible
markup language file associated with said high expertise level; and
creating an instance in computer memory of at least one of said
configurable Deployment Descriptor files keyed to an expertise level
according to said user’s choice input to said first prompt and according to
said user inputs responsive to said subsequent prompts by configuring said
instance of a configurable Deployment Descriptor, wherein a fully defined
Deployment Descriptor file is produced in computer memory.

REFERENCES
Davis US 6,279,154 B1 Aug. 21, 2001
Gupton US 7,228,541 B2 June 5, 2007
Woollen US 7,428,733 B2 Sept. 23, 2008

REJECTION
Claims 8, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gupton in view of Davis and Woollen.
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the combination of references does not show
causal and logical links between steps and elements (App. Br. 9). Appellants
further contend that Gupton fails to teach the deployment descriptors recited
in the claims (App. Br. 11). Appellants assert that Gupton fails to teach a
dialog for defining an interface between two modules, said dialog allowing a
user three levels of expertise (App. Br. 13). Last, Appellants argue that the
Examiner did not resolve the level of ordinary skill in the art (App. Br. 15).
Appeal 2010-009272
Application 11/109,069

4
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Gupton, Davis, and Woollen teach or
fairly suggest prompting a user responsive to said user’s definition of an
interface?
2. Does the combination of Gupton, Davis, and Woollen teach or
fairly suggest a display offering three or more deployment descriptor
definition methods relating to levels of expertise of the user regarding
configuration and deployment of two or more system solution components
for which an interface has been defined?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls”).
Appeal 2010-009272
Application 11/109,069

5
ANALYSIS
Appellants present a unitary argument with respect to all claims. We
select claim 8 as representative of the appealed claims, pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gupton fails to
teach prompting a user responsive to said user’s definition of an interface
(App. Br. 10-11). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Gupton
describes a sequence editor that enables a user to define a test application
(Ans. 8; Gupton, col. 13, ll. 37-45). We agree with the Examiner’s further
finding that, “responsive to” the user’s creation of a test application, Gupton
teaches that “a graphical user interface . . . may allow the user to invoke
programmatic creation of an application system installer” (Ans. 8; Gupton,
col. 14, l. 64 – col. 15, l. 1). Further, we agree with the Examiner that
Gupton teaches defining an interface, within the meaning of the claims (Ans.
10). Gupton’s test application comprises a test sequence, and “[s]equences
comprise steps that may call external code modules” (col. 13, ll. 22-23). “By
using module adapters 240 that have the standard adapter interface 232, the
test executive engine 220 can load and execute different types of code
modules” (col. 13, ll. 23-27). Gupton thus teaches that an interface is
established between, e.g., a test sequence and a code module.
We do not agree with Appellants that Gupton fails to teach the
claimed deployment descriptors (App. Br. 11). Rather, we agree with the
Examiner that the deployment information of Gupton as opposed to the
installer per se, corresponds to the claimed deployment descriptors (Ans. 9).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Gupton’s “deployables . . . include
deployment information . . . such as dependencies, platform, or other
Appeal 2010-009272
Application 11/109,069

6
information useful for a deployer to deploy the deployable” (Ans. 9; Gupton,
col. 19, ll. 2-6).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Gupton’s teaching of three
installation types corresponds to the claimed “levels of expertise of said user
regarding configuration and deployment of said two or more system solution
components for which an interface has been defined” (Ans. 11-12). We
further agree with the Examiner’s finding that Gupton’s “complete,”
“typical,” and “custom” installer options may fairly be read to correspond to
low, no, and high expertise options, respectively, as the claims recite (Ans.
12).
We do not agree with Appellants that reference to the sequence editor
being used to define module interfaces is unrelated to the installer’s file list
(Reply Br. 2). Gupton teaches that the test executive software illustrated in
Figure 4 includes a sequence editor for creating and editing test executive
sequences (col. 13, l. 54 – col. 14, l. 21). Once the user has developed the
test executive application (i.e., responsive to such development), an interface
allows the user to invoke programmatic creation of an application system
installer, e.g., for deploying the test executive application to a target system
(col. 14, l. 64 – col. 15, l. 2).
Last, Appellants’ argument that the Examiner did not resolve the level
of ordinary skill in the art (App. Br. 15-16) does not persuade us that the
Examiner erred. Appellants’ reliance on KSR here is misplaced. KSR states
that analysis of “interrelated teachings of multiple patents . . . effects of
demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace . . .
[or] background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art” should be “made explicit” to “facilitate review.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
Appeal 2010-009272
Application 11/109,069

7
418. KSR does not, however, mandate that the Examiner must go beyond his
statement that the level or ordinary skill in the pertinent art is “inferred from
the teachings of the references” (Ans. 13). We are therefore satisfied that
the Examiner’s statement is sufficient to justify for the proposed
combination of references.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8, 22,
and 23 as being obvious over Gupton in view of Davis and Woollen. We
will sustain the § 103 rejection.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Gupton, Davis, and Woollen teaches prompting
a user responsive to said user’s definition of an interface.
2. The combination of Gupton, Davis, and Woollen fairly suggests a
display offering three or more deployment descriptor definition methods
relating to levels of expertise of the user regarding configuration and
deployment of two or more system solution components for which an
interface has been defined.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 22, and 23 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kis