Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

13034589 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/034,589 02/24/2011
29973 7590 06/01/2016
CRGOLAW
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jacob Taylor
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.
130 l -005DIV 1090
EXAMINER
BELANI, KISHIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACOB TAYLOR, CLINTON ORAM, and JOHN ROBERTS
Appeal2014-008748 1
Application 13/034,589
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 3-18, which are all of the claims
pending in this appeal. App. Br. 1. Claims 1 and 2 have been withdrawn
from consideration. Id. at 10 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SugarCRM Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008748
Application 13/034,589
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a software application update
system comprising computer systems, each computer system hosting a
deployment of a software application "1 OOa, 1 OOb, ... 1 OOn," each computer
system having a data gathering unit "302a, 302b, ... 302n," automatically
gathering information about the deployment on the computer system, and
periodically communicating that information over a link 304 to a central
computer 306. See Spec. 24, 1. 18-25, 1. 8; Fig. 15.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 3 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
3. An apparatus for updating a deployment of a software
application having a plurality of modules, comprising:
a plurality of computing devices each having a
deployment of a software application wherein each deployment
of the software application has a set of modules associated with
the deployment, each of the computing devices also having a
data gathering unit that gathers a set of deployment information
about the deployment on the particular computing device; and
an aggregation computer coupled to the plurality of
computing devices over a link, the central computing having an
aggregating unit that receives the set of deployment information
from each computing device, a module storage unit that stores
one or more updates for the deployments.
Kasmirsky et al.
("Kasmirsky")
Kinsley et al.
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2004/0193740 Al
US 2007 /0026942 Al
2
Sept. 30, 2004
Feb. 1,2007
Appeal2014-008748
Application 13/034,589
("Kinsley")
Sobel
Sierer et al.
("Sierer")
US 7 ,334,005 B2
US 7,478,385 B2
Rejections on Appeal
Feb. 19,2008
Jan. 13,2009
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 3---6 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Sierer. Ans. 2-7.
Claims 7, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sierer and Sobel. Ans. 7-9.
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sierer and Kasmirsky. Ans. 9-11.
Claims 10, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Sierer and Kinsley. Ans. 11-14.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3-9, and the Reply Brief, pages 2---6. 2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 24, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed July
21, 2014), and the Answer (mailed May 20, 2014) for the respective details.
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments 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) (2012).
3
Appeal2014-008748
Application 13/034,589
Anticipation Rejection
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in
finding Sierer describes a plurality of computing devices each having a
deployment of a software application ... , each of the computing devices
also having a data gathering unit that gathers a set of deployment
information about the deployment on the particular computing device, as
recited in independent claim 3?
Appellants argue the Sierer does not describe a "plurality of
computing devices each having a deployment of a software application," as
recited in the claim. App. Br. 3--4. In particular, Appellants assert Sierer
describes "a single 'target system.'" Id. at 5---6 (citing Sierer, col. 1, 11. 15-
20). Appellants additionally note Sierer discloses a "multi-component
application." Id. (citing Sierer, col. 1, 11. 58---63). Appellants contend that
the cited portions of Sierer do not describe multiple different computers,
each deployed with the same application. Id. Appellants further dispute the
Examiner's characterization of a client computer and a server computer of
Sierer comprising a distributed system of networked computers as "multiple
different computers, each hosting a deployment of the same application."
App. Br. 6-7 (citing Sierer, col. 11, 11. 19-35, Fig. 18). Appellants
specifically argue that multiple servers servicing a client or multiple clients
in Sierer do not describe "computing devices each having a deployment of a
software application," as recited in the claim. Reply Br. 3--4 (citing Sierer,
col. 11, 11. 19-39, Fig. lB). Appellants moreover assert Sierer discloses
"multiple servers supporting one deployment of one application." Reply Br.
4 (citing Sierer, Fig. lB). Appellants then contend the claim requires
4
Appeal2014-008748
Application 13/034,589
"multiple servers each supporting one deployment of one application."
Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted).
In response, the Examiner finds Sierer describes a distributed system
of multiple coupled computing devices. Ans. 15-16. "' [T]he client
computer 102 and the server computer 106 may comprise a distributed
system' ... comprising two or more interconnected or coupled devices."
Ans. 15-16 (quoting Sierer, col. 11, 11. 34--38). We agree with the Examiner
that the disclosed server may comprise multiple computers, and that the
client computer may comprise multiple computers. We agree with
Appellants that Sierer discloses applications with multiple components.
App. Br. 5---6 (citing Sierer, col. 1, 11. 58---63). Sierer states "the server 106
may store software applications intended for installation on client or target
computer systems ... [and t ]he computer system 102 may access the server
106 to retrieve data or execute software." Sierer, col. 11, 11. 56---60 (cited in
Ans. 2-3). We find, however, this cited portion of Sierer describes software
applications available on the server for installation on multiple client
computers where each client accesses the server for deployment of the
software application. Id. We, therefore, disagree with Appellants'
contention that Sierer discloses one deployment of a software application
supported among multiple computers. Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, Sierer
does not only describe a client computer executing a portion of a software
application, among other portions of the software application executed by
other client computers, as Appellants argue. Id.
Appellants contend Sierer does not describe a "data gathering unit
gathers ... information about the deployment on the particular computing
5
Appeal2014-008748
Application 13/034,589
device," as recited in the claim. App. Br. 7. First, Appellants argue the
claim requires the data gathering unit to gather information about the
preexisting deployment on the computing device. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br.
6. Appellants assert the installation wizard of Sierer accepts options to be
used to deploy an application to a computing device, prior to deployment.
App. Br. 8 (citing Sierer, col. 6, 11. 29-38). Second, Appellants submit the
following:
Updating an existing application with new configuration data
still is not the same as the claimed retrieval from an existing
application of data regarding its deployment. Examiner has not
cited to a single portion of Sierer that discusses the retrieval
from an existing application of information regarding the
deployment of that existing application. To wit, the very nature
of an installation wizard is to collect data not from the existing
application, but from an end user to be applied to an existing
application.
Reply Br. 6.
We understand the argument reproduced hereinabove to mean that
Sierer describes collecting configuration data from the end user, rather from
an existing application, to be used to configure the application for future
deployment and to update the existing application. This argument is not
persuasive. On the one hand, Appellants contend Sierer discloses accepting
options used to deploy an application. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 6. However,
on the other hand, Appellants admit Sierer discloses collecting new
configuration data to update an existing application. Reply Br. 6.
Appellants further assert the claim requires that the "set of deployment
information" be retrieved from the software application, rather than the end
user. App. Br. 7-8. We note the claims do not require the "set of
6
Appeal2014-008748
Application 13/034,589
deployment information" to be gathered from any particular location. We
note the "set of deployment information" is "about the deployment on the
particular computing device." We further agree with the Examiner that
claim does not require an existing deployment of the software application or
that the deployment of the software application be completed. Ans. 16-17.
The claim does not recite that the deployment of the application has been
completed or that the software application performs a function that would
require its deployment to be completed. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds
Sierer describes updating an existing installation. Ans. 17 (citing Sierer, col.
6, 1. 39---col. 7, 1. 2); see Sierer, col. 6, 11. 57-58 ("[T]he user may specify
particular features to install, update, or remove."). The update and remove
features in Sierer require the software application to be installed. Sierer
further states:
For example, if the method determines that a feature, i.e., a set
of software components, of the application system already
exists in the target system, but the set of soft\'l/are components
(the feature) is an older version than that of the distribution,
then if the user has selected a deployment option specifying an
update or upgrade for that feature, the method may remove the
old version from the target system and install the new version,
or may simply install the new, version over the old version.
Sierer, col. 7, 11. 46-54.
We find the portion of Sierer quoted above describes details of the
Examiner's finding that the deployment option concerns an update or
upgrade for a software component already installed on the target system. Id.
It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 3.
7
Appeal2014-008748
Application 13/034,589
Regarding the rejection of claims 4---6 and 12-15, because Appellants
have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6) as those
previously discussed for patentability of claim 3 above, claims 4---6 and 12-
15 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2013).
Obviousness Rejections
Regarding the rejections of claims 7-11 and 16-18, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 6)
as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 3 above, we sustain
the rejections of claims 7-11 and 16-18 for the foregoing reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-18 as set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
8