Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2016

12100322 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/100,322 04/09/2008
29973 7590 05/17/2016
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.
1301-009U 5900
EXAMINER
BOURZIK, BRAHIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712016 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, JOHN ROBERTS, CLINTON ORAM,
LILA ALEXEI TRETIKOV, JOSEPH L. PARSONS, and
SADEK BAROUDI
Appeal2014-006775
Application 12/100,322
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 9-18, 22-27, and 29, which are all the
claims pending in the present patent application. Claims 5-8, 19-21, and 28
are cancelled. Non-Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify SugarCRM, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br.
2.
Appeal2014-006775
Application 12/100,322
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to deploying a software-based system
using one or more hardware components. Spec. 1: 19-20.
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphases added):
1. A software data center edition system,
compnsmg:
a data center compnsmg a plurality of
different servers each with memory and at least one
processor, the servers being coupled to one another
over a local area network within a single building
and enjoying a communicative link to the global
Internet;
a plurality of nodes in a cluster of nodes
executing in different servers of the data center;
a plurality of instances of a single customer
relationship management (CRM) application, each
instance hosted by a different one of the nodes; and
a unified application management console
hosted by one of the nodes, the console being
programmed to configure all of the instances of the
single CRM application.
The Rejections
Claims 1-3, 9, 12, 15-17, 22, 25, and 29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gao (US 2006/0245354 Al; Nov. 2, 2006), Drennen
(US 7,464,151 Bl; Dec. 9, 2008), and Elbury (US 2007/0016638 Al; Jan.
18, 2007). Non-Final Act. 2-11.
Claims 4, 14, 18 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Gao, Drennen, Elbury, and Hossain (US 5,671,415; Sept. 23, 1997). Non-
Final Act. 11-14.
2
Appeal2014-006775
Application 12/100,322
Claims 10, 11, 13, 23, 24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Gao, Drennen, Elbury, and Gere (US 7,000,229 B2; Feb. 14, 2006).
Non-Final Act. 14-16.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because,
although Elbury teaches a unified application management console, Elbury
lacks "placement of the unified management console in a node amongst
nodes of a cluster in which instances of a CRM application execute." App.
Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. Appellants further contend, "to the extent that Examiner
has mapped the claimed nodes to the workstations, the server 104 is plainly
not a workstation 102 and thus not a node." App. Br. at 8 (internal
quotations omitted).
Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we determine Appellants
have not defined in the claims or the Specification the term "node." We
observe claim 1 requires a cluster of nodes executing in different servers of
the data center. Claim 1 further recites application instances executing in the
nodes, such that no two instances may share a single node, but a single node
may house both an application instance and the unified management
console. We further observe that the Specification discloses, "Each node 24
may further comprise a cluster of servers 26." Spec., 3:26-27. Finally, in
the absence of an explicit definition of the term within the claims or the
Specification, we observe a relevant dictionary defines a "node" as, "In
networking, a device, such as a client computer, a server, or a shared printer,
that is connected to the network and is capable of communicating with other
network devices." MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 366 (5th ed. 2002).
Thus, the claimed unified management console must execute in a node
3
Appeal2014-006775
Application 12/100,322
within a cluster of nodes running one or more application instances, where
the node may include one or more servers.
In light of these determinations, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments. We agree with the Examiner that Elbury teaches a unified
administration console (i.e., unified management console) installed as a
server application 206 within server component 104 (i.e., executing within a
node, the node executing in a server). Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 19-20 (citing
Elbury, ,-i,-i 21, 23 and Fig. 2). We further agree with the Examiner-and
Appellants do not dispute-that Gao and Drennen together teach or suggest
application instances executing in different nodes, the nodes executing on a
cluster of different servers. Non-Final Act. 3-6; Ans. 16-17. Finally, we
observe the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute:
It would [have] been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention was made to incorporate [the]
teaching[s] ofElbury into [the] teaching[s] of Gao and Drennen
to simplify multi-site, multi-device and/or multi server
management and deployment of application. This allows for
ease of deployment of application across network and
monitoring of assets, applications and services.
Non-Final Act. 7. We, therefore, find by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellants' arguments to the contrary amount simply to arguing the cited
references individually, without considering the collective teachings of the
references as a whole. Where, as here, a rejection is based on a combination
of references, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claim 1. Appellants present no further arguments on claims
4
Appeal2014-006775
Application 12/100,322
2--4, 9-18, 22-27, and 29. See App. Br. 3-8. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1--4, 9-18, 22-
27, and 29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5