Ex Parte Schneider

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2016

11985122 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111985,122 11113/2007
14400 7590 06/02/2016
Patent Docket Administrator
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
65 Livingston A venue
Roseland, NJ 07068
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James Paul Schneider
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.
05220.323 (P290) 7587
EXAMINER
TECKLU, ISAAC TUKU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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 JAMES PAUL SCHNEIDER
Appeal2014-009952
Application 11/985, 122
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-21, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 4, 8, 11, 16,
and 18 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Red Hat Inc. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009952
Application 11/985, 122
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's described and claimed invention relates generally to
automated recording and playback of application interactions. Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
an application proxy server recording responses and
requests of a transaction of an application between an application
server and a client machine when the responses and requests pass
through the application proxy server, the application proxy
server physically separate from and communicatively coupled
between the application server and the client machine; and
the application proxy server:
generating a script executable by the application
proxy server to play back the transaction based on the
responses and requests recorded;
executing the generated script to replay the
transaction to test a new version of the application;
examining the replayed transaction to determine
which part of the replayed transaction is different from the
previously recorded transaction by determining
differences in response time between recorded requests
and responses between the application server and the
client machine; and
alerting the client machine of a possible problem
with the application server when at least one of the
determined differences in response time exceeds a limit.
Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2014-009952
Application 11/985, 122
References
Smith US 2002/0143931 Al Oct. 3, 2002
Ti wary US 2003/0163608 Al Aug. 28, 2003
Allan US 2004/0111488 Al June 10, 2004
Boss US 2004/0267820 Al Dec. 30, 2004
Johnson US 7,451,177 Bl Nov. 11, 2008
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and20 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Allan, in view of Boss, in view of Ti wary, in view
of Johnson, and further in view of Smith.
2. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Allan, in view of Boss, in view
of Ti wary, and further in view of Smith.
Issues on Appeal
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief2 present us with the
following issues:
1. Does the combination of Allan, Boss, Tiwary, Johnson,
and Smith teach or suggest "executing the generated
script to replay the transaction to test a new version of the
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 11, 2013,
"Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed May 9, 2014, "Appeal Br."),
the Examiner's Answer (mailed July 16, 2014, "Ans."), and the original
Specification (filed Nov. 13, 2007, "Spec.").
3
Appeal2014-009952
Application 11/985, 122
application," as recited in claims 1 and 15, and similarly
recited in claim 7?
2. Does the combination of Allan, Boss, Tiwary, Johnson,
and Smith teach or suggest "alerting the client machine
of a possible problem with the application server when at
least one of the determined differences in response time
exceeds a limit," as recited in claims 1 and 15, and
similarly recited in claim 7?
3. Is it proper to combine Allan and Tiwary with Johnson?
4. Does the combination of Allan, Boss, Tiwary, and Smith
teach or suggest "executing the generated script to replay
the transaction to test a new version of the application,"
as recited in claim 21?
5. Does the combination of Allan, Boss, Ti wary, and Smith
teach or suggest "examining the replayed transaction to
determine which part of the replayed transaction is
different from the previously recorded transaction ... by
examining other information comprising tracking cookies
and log files," as recited in claim 21?
6. Does the combination of Allan, Boss, Tiwary, and Smith
teach or suggest "alerting the client machine of a possible
problem with the application server when at least one of
the determined differences in response time, information
in the tracking cookies, or information in the log files
exceeds a limit," as recited in claim 21?
4
Appeal2014-009952
Application 11/985, 122
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has
erred. Appeal Br. 8-27. Unless otherwise indicated, we agree with, and
adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons as set forth in the
Final Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-1 7) and the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-12). For emphasis, we highlight specific
arguments and findings as follows.
Issue 1
Appellant argues Allan does not teach or suggest executing a
generated script to replay a transaction to test a new version of an
application because Allan does not teach or suggest using a playback of a
script to test a new version of an application. Appeal Br. 9-10. Instead, as
argued by Appellant, Allan describes a playback of a script is performed on
the same version of a web browser in order to automate a user task. Appeal
Br. 10. The Examiner finds Allan discloses a transaction recordation and
playback utility which tests an entire application. Ans. 5 (citing Allan
i-f 108). The Examiner further finds Ti wary also discloses a playback utility,
which is used to test an application. Id. (citing Ti wary i-fi-126 and 265).
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. While we agree
with Appellant that Allan does not teach or suggest using the playback of the
script to test a new version of an application (Appeal Br. 9-10), we agree
with the Examiner that Allan teaches executing the playback script to replay
a recorded transaction and that Tiwary teaches using a playback script to test
an application. Ans. 5 (citing Ti wary i-fi-126 and 265). Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that the combination of Allan and Tiwary renders obvious
5
Appeal2014-009952
Application 11/985, 122
executing a generated script to replay a transaction to test a new version of
an application.
Issue 2
Appellant argues Smith does not teach or suggest alerting a client
machine of a problem with an application server when determined
differences in response time exceed a limit. Appeal Br. 12. As argued by
Appellant, Smith discloses triggering an alarm when performance data (such
as a processing load) falls above or below threshold performance levels,
rather than when differences in response time between different transaction
replays fall above or below the thresholds. Appeal Br. 12-13. Further,
according to Appellant, Smith's alarm is reported to a user of an application
server being tested, rather than to a client machine communicably coupled to
the application server. Appeal Br. 13. 3 The Examiner finds Smith discloses
a software product recording transactions initiated by a web browser,
performing automated testing using the recorded transactions, measuring
system performance data and business performance data, and generating an
alarm when thresholds are exceeded. Ans. 6; Final Act. 6.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Smith teaches measuring system performance data of a
system during a playback of a recorded transaction, and generating an alarm
when the system performance data exceeds either an upper threshold or a
lower threshold. Ans. 6 (citing Smith i-f 9). Smith further describes system
performance as a processing load or some other system performance metric.
3 Appellant also argues Johnson does not teach or suggest client machine
alerts. Appeal Br. 13. We do not reach this argument as we agree with the
Examiner that Smith teaches generating an alarm. Ans. 6.
6
Appeal2014-009952
Application 11/985, 122
Smith il 32. As a response time is a type of system performance metric, we
agree Smith teaches or suggests generating an alarm when a difference in
response time of the system exceeds a threshold. Further, Smith also
describes the generated alarm triggers a communication (i.e., phone call, e-
mail, or page) to a user, and further causes a chart illustrating the system
performance data to be displayed to a remote terminal of the user. Smith
i-f 32. Thus, we also agree Smith teaches the generated alarm is reported to a
client machine.
Additionally, in rejecting claim 1, the Examiner also cited Tiwary as
teaching determining a difference between a response of a recorded
transaction and a response of a playback transaction. Final Act. 5---6 (citing
Tiwary i-f 265. Tiwary explicitly teaches determining a difference in
response time. See Ti wary i-f 265 ("[ c ]omparing differences in value
between one or more of the possible performance metrics during recording
and playback for the system under tests ... [ s Jome of the typical metrics
used to measure the performance accuracy include ... transaction response
time"). Thus, we agree the combination of Smith and Ti wary renders
obvious alerting a client machine of a problem with an application server
when determined differences in response time exceed a limit.
Issue 3
Appellant argues there is no motivation to combine Johnson with the
other cited references. Appeal Br. 15. More specifically, Appellant argues
the Examiner finds Johnson teaches a time stamp, and utilizes this time
stamp teaching as a motivation to combine Johnson with the other cited
references. Id. However, according to Appellant, the reliance on Johnson's
teaching of a time stamp does not justify the combination of Johnson with
7
Appeal2014-009952
Application 11/985, 122
the other cited references because claim 1 does not recite a time stamp, and
Appellant did not rely on a time stamp feature in presenting arguments over
the cited prior art references. Appeal Br. 15-16.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. We agree claim 1
does not recite a time stamp, and we agree the Examiner solely relied upon
Johnson for teaching a time stamp in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 6;
Ans. 7. However, the Examiner cited other references (i.e., Allan, Boss,
Tiwary, and Smith) as teaching the features recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 4--
7), and Appellant's argument does not address the combination of the other
cited references. In other words, the issue of whether it is proper to combine
Johnson with the other references is irrelevant because the Examiner's
reliance on the other cited references is sufficient to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness and the Examiner was not required to additionally rely
on Johnson. Thus, Appellant has not established the inclusion of Johnson in
the rejection of claim 1 is reversible error.
Therefore, for at least the reasons described above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 7, and 15, as well as claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 10,
12-14, 17, 19, and 20, which are not argued separately.
Issue 4
Appellant's arguments regarding issue 4 are substantially similar to
Appellant's arguments regarding issue 1. See Appeal Br. 17-21. The
Examiner's findings regarding issue 4 are also substantially similar to the
findings regarding issue 1. See Final Act. 15; Ans. 8-9. We do not find
Appellant's arguments regarding issue 4 persuasive for the reasons discussed
above with respect to Appellant's arguments regarding issue 1.
8
Appeal2014-009952
Application 11/985, 122
Issue 5
Appellant argues Allan and Tiwary fail to teach or suggest examining
a replayed transaction to determine which part of the replayed transaction is
different from a previously recorded transaction by examining other
information comprising tracking cookies and log files. Appeal Br. 22-23.
Instead, as argued by Appellant, Allan merely teaches a transaction
recordation and playback utility captures dynamic information upon
recordation and/or playback of a web-browser-based transaction, and Tiwary
merely describes examining performance metrics for differences. Appeal
Br. 21-24. The Examiner finds Allan and Tiwary both disclose examining a
replayed transaction to determine which part of the replayed transaction is
different from a previously recorded transaction by examining other
information comprising tracking cookies and log files. 4 Final Act. 15;
Ans. 10.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Tiwary teaches examining a playback transaction to
determine a part of the replayed transaction different from a recorded
transaction. Ans. 10; see also Tiwary i-f 35. We further agree Tiwary also
teaches examining tracking cookies and log files. Ans. 10 (citing Ti wary
i-f 219). Thus, we agree Tiwary teaches examining a replayed transaction to
determine which part of the replayed transaction is different from a
4 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner cites Allan and Tiwary as
teaching the aforementioned claim element. Final Act. 15. However, in the
Answer, the Examiner cites Allan and Boss as teaching the aforementioned
claim element. Ans. 10. We treat the citation to Boss in the Answer as a
citation to Tiwary, as it appears a citation to Tiwary was intended.
9
Appeal2014-009952
Application 11/985, 122
previously recorded transaction by examining other information comprising
tracking cookies and log files.
Issue 6
Appellant's arguments regarding issue 6 are substantially similar to
Appellant's arguments regarding issue 2. See Appeal Br. 24--27. The
Examiner's findings regarding issue 6 are also substantially similar to the
findings regarding issue 2. See Final Act. 15; Ans. 11-12. We do not find
Appellant's arguments regarding issue 6 persuasive for the reasons discussed
above with respect to Appellant's arguments regarding issue 2.
Therefore, for at least the reasons described above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10,
12-15, 17, and 19-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
10