Ex Parte Shadi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

12897678 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/897,678 10/04/2010 TomerShadi
56436 7590 04/01/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82263128 2363
EXAMINER
APONTE, FRANCISCO JAVIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMER SHADI, NADA V FISCHER,
and DIMITRY LIPMAN
Appeal2014-004052
Application 12/897 ,678
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to deploying an application component,
such as software or firmware, in a multi-deployment configuration on a
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP and
Hewlett-Packard Company as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004052
Application 12/897,678
computer system or network. See Abstract; Spec. 1. Claims 1, 15, and 18
are independent. Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below with the disputed
limitations in italics, are illustrative of the invention:
1. A method for deploying an additional application
component in a multicomponent deployment configuration,
compnsmg:
acqmnng an application component and integration
topology for a multicomponent deployment configuration;
selecting an additional application component;
enabling a predefined integration associating the
additional application component with a deployed application
component in the application component and integration
topology; and
deploying the additional application component and the
predefined integration on to a target machine.
15. A method for removing an application component in a
multi-component deployment configuration, comprising:
acquiring an application component and integration
topology for a multicomponent deployment configuration;
determining deployed application components and
deployed integrations in the application component and
integration topology deployed on a target machine;
selecting an application component to be removed;
disabling a predefined integration associating the
application component to be removed with a deployed
application component in the application component and
integration topology; and
2
Appeal2014-004052
Application 12/897,678
removing the application component to be removed and
the predefined integration from the application component and
integration topology.
App. Br. 17, 19 (emphasis added).
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims:
Gazdik
Smith
Wetherell
Berg
US 6,301,708 Bl
US 7,158,248 B2
US 8,239,855 B2
US 8,302,093 B2
The Rejections on Appeal
Oct. 9, 2001
Jan.2,2007
Aug. 7, 2012
Oct. 30, 2012
Claims 1, 3-12, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Berg and Wetherell. Ans. 3-12.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Berg, Wetherell, and Smith. Ans. 12-14.
Claims 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Berg, Wetherell, and Gazdik. Ans. 14--16.
Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gazdik, Berg, and Wetherell. Ans. 17-22.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. On this record, we are unpersuaded of
error in the Examiner's rejection of the claims on appeal. We adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which this
3
Appeal2014-004052
Application 12/897,678
appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, and highlight the following
for emphasis.
Claims 1 and 18
The Examiner cited Berg and Wetherell in rejecting these claims,
finding the "additional application component" in, for example, Berg's
disclosure of "program code for deploying a software product comprising a
plurality of components" and "matching each of the plurality of components
to one of the plurality of publishers [computers] according to the
characteristics and dependencies of the components." Ans. 4; Berg col. 2 11.
10-13, 20-22. One embodiment disclosed by Berg illustrates the
topological model of "a software product comprising four components," and
describes how "each component is deployed or distributed to the publisher
with which it was matched" according to predefined "characteristics." Ans.
3--4; Berg Col. 5, 11. 5-6; col. 6 11. 30-33; Figs. 2A, 2B.
Appellants contend that the prior art lacks the "additional application
component" required in independent claims 1 and 18. App. Br. 7-8.
Appellants argue Berg's "four components" do not satisfy the claim
limitation of "an additional component" because they are "part of, and
deployed along with, [a] software package" and deployed "via a single
integration/deployment." App. Br. 7-8 (emphasis in original). In contrast,
the claimed "additional application component may," according to
Appellants, "be designed or configured to run as a stand-alone product or
may be an independently developed product" configured to run with other
independently developed products. App. Br. 8; Spec. 4.
4
Appeal2014-004052
Application 12/897,678
Appellants' argument, however, relies upon limitations not in the
claims. See, e.g., In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (rejecting
arguments "not based on limitations appearing in the claims"). As the
Examiner points out, Ans. 25, Appellants' claim language "as written"
includes no requirement that the "additional application component" be
stand-alone or independent software. And the portion of the Specification
cited by Appellants, App. Br. 8, merely states that the additional application
component "may" have certain characteristics, such as being "configured to
run as a stand-alone product" or "to run with other independently developed
products" - not that it must or does have such characteristics. Spec. 4--5;
Ans. 25; see also In re Am. Acad. Of Science Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (cautioning against reading limitations into the claim
"absent clear disclaimer in the specification") (emphasis added). In fact,
Appellants' Specification defines the "application components" broadly as
"software application[ s ], firmware or combination of software and
firmware." Spec. 3. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
software topology and components in Berg disclose "application
components" and "additional application component" of the claims.
Appellants also argue that Berg fails to disclose the claim limitation of
a ''predefined integration associating the additional application component
with a deployed application component." App. Br. 8-10 (emphasis added).
The Examiner agrees: "Berg does not explicitly disclose[] the associating
being with an installed component," i.e., does not disclose associating "a
component with a deployed application component." Ans. 4 (emphasis
added). The Examiner, however, does not rely solely upon Berg for this
limitation. Ans. 28; Final Act. 4--6. Rather, the Examiner cites the
5
Appeal2014-004052
Application 12/897,678
combination of Wetherell and Berg, stating that "Wetherell cures the
deficiencies of Berg by including components that are already installed [i.e.,
deployed]." Id. (emphasis added).
As the Examiner describes, Wetherell "provides an installation
example where multiple components are already installed on the system,"
and "verifies which newly needed components are dependent upon the
already installed components, to provide proper installation and avoid any
error." Ans. 26; Wetherell col. 5 11. 41--49. The verification is based upon a
"predefined integration" between components "for a faster and proper
execution of software products." Ans. 27; Wetherell col. 2 11. 62-67; col. 3
11. 1-8. Like Appellants' broadly defined application components, the term
"component" in Wetherell encompasses "virtually all types of [software]
program units." Ans. 27. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill
would realize the benefits of "integrating the multi-component topology
descriptions provided by Berg, into Wetherell's multi-component
installation which has the capability of executing an 'installation,' 'un-
installation' or 'updating' of components that have been already installed or
deployed." Ans. 27-28. Such benefits would include enhanced integration
topology and error avoidance. Ans. 28.
In response, Appellants merely state "[ n Jo where in Wetherell does it
describe a predefined integration that associates an additional application
component with a deployed application component." App. Br. 9. This
conclusory statement fails to rebut the evidence and reasoning provided by
the Examiner, as discussed above, including the verification process
disclosed in Wetherell. See, e.g., Ans. 27; Wetherell col. 2 11. 62----67; col. 3
6
Appeal2014-004052
Application 12/897,678
11. 1-8. Nor do Appellants contest the Examiner's stated rationale for
combining the references. Thus, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
We find, as did the Examiner, the combination of Wetherell and Berg
teaches or suggests the contested claim limitations of an "additional
application component" and "predefined integration associating the
additional application component with a deployed application component."
We therefore sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1and18.
Claims 2-14, and 19-20
Dependent claims 2-14 and 19-20 stand rejected as obvious over
various combinations of Berg and Wetherell with additional references.
Appellants argue that the additional references do not overcome the
deficiencies of Berg and Wetherell, specifically, the alleged absence of an
"additional application component" and a "predefined integration
associating the additional application component with a deployed
application component.'' Because we find that the combination of Berg and
Wetherell teaches the disputed limitations, see supra, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2-14 and 19-20.
Claims 15-17
The remaining claims 15-1 7 are directed to a method of removing an
application component from a deployment configuration, i.e., effectively the
inverse of the previously discussed claims. App. Br. 19; Spec. 7. In
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner cites Berg and
Wetherell for the disclosures discussed above, including software topology,
application components, and predefined integration, Final Act. 18-21, and
cites Gazdik for teaching "reversal" of the install process in order to remove
7
Appeal2014-004052
Application 12/897,678
(uninstall) an application component. Id. at 20-21. On appeal, Appellants
do not contest the rationale for combining references, but argue the
combination fails to disclose or teach "disabling a predefined integration
associating the application component to be removed with a deployed
application component."
Specifically, Appellants argue that Gazdik, which is directed to a
method for installing and uninstalling software, "teaches the uninstallation
of an entire software package, rather than the uninstallation of an application
component" as recited in claims 15-17. App. Br. 14 (emphasis added).
Alternatively, Appellants argue that Gazdik teaches "an uninstallation
process that conditionally uninstalls application components dependent upon
the presence or absence of other application components, rather than
disabling a predefined integration." Id. We find neither argument supported
by the evidence.
First, Gazdik expressly describes the "uninstall [of] a specific software
component," not the entire software package as Appellants allege. Ans. 32;
Gazdik col. 3 11. 47--49, col. 41. 18 (emphasis added). As the Examiner
notes, the install and uninstall processes of Gazdik operate upon "a selected
collection" of program files in a "software suite." Ans. 32 (emphasis
added); see also Gazdik col. 3 1. 63 - col. 4, 1. 16. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that the cited references teach removal of "an application
component."
Second, although Appellants argue Gazdik fails to disclose "disabling
a predefined integration associating the application component to be
removed with a deployed application component," the Examiner relied upon
a combination of the cited references as teaching this limitation, not simply
8
Appeal2014-004052
Application 12/897,678
Gazdik. See Ans. 17-20. In particular, the Examiner finds Wetherell
discloses a "multi-component based software installation or uninstallation
method, in which ... each installed component depends on another
component" [i.e., a predefined integration], Ans. 20, Berg similarly discloses
a "topological description defin[ing] characteristics and dependencies of the
components," Ans. 20, and Gazdik discloses an "uninstall process [that] is
the reverse of the install process," including "disabling" the installation
steps. Ans. 17; see also supra 4--5. Thus, Appellants' argument, App. Br.
15, that "Gazdik merely discloses that an install/uninstall processing engine
unexecutes the installation steps" is inapposite and does not explain
persuasively why the combination of references does not teach the disputed
limitation. We find that it does, for the reasons cited by the Examiner. Ans.
31-33.
Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 15-17.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 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) (2013).
AFFIRMED
9