Ex Parte Troch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

13495792 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2017)

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.
13/495,792 06/13/2012 Josef Troch 82963675 7248
56436 7590 08/25/2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
AQUINO, WYNUEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2017 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
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEF TROCH, MARTIN PIRCHALA, and MARTIN PODVAL
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and MICHAEL M. BARRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20, which are all claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the Hewlett-Packard Development Co., LP, a wholly-
owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Co., as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
Introduction
Appellants describe that “prior [art] techniques of updating virtualized
services significantly diminish the cost-saving advantages of using
virtualization tools due to the expense of maintaining virtualized
environments when implementing service interface changes (e.g.,
implementing changes from new service schemas).” Spec. 17.
Unlike prior techniques that update virtualized services by
wholly replacing original service schemas with new service
schemas, examples disclosed herein perform node-by-node
comparisons between original service schemas . . . and new
service schemas . . . without user intervention to identify
changes and types of changes made in the new service schemas
relative to respective original service schemas. Examples
disclosed herein specify changes as transformations that are
subsequently applied without user intervention to
corresponding original simulation models of respective
virtualized services while maintaining data associations . . .
between nodes of updated simulation models and data
previously collected in association with the corresponding
original simulation models.
Id. 1 8.
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method to update a virtualized service, the
method comprising:
comparing a first node of a first service schema to a
second node of a second service schema based on a criterion,
the first service schema and the second service schema
comprising at least one of a descriptive language or a markup
language;
finding a change in the second node of the second service
schema relative to the first node of the first service schema
based on the criterion; and
2
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
updating a third node of a first virtualized service with a
processor and without user intervention based on the change
while maintaining an association between the third node of the
first virtualized service and data previously associated with the
third node.
Br. 20 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1—10 and 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Pasha (US 2007/0143501 Al; June 21, 2007). Final
Act. 3-10.
(2) Claims 11—15 and 20 stand rejected under § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pasha and Yuan (US 2010/0088676 Al; Apr. 8, 2010).
Final Act. 10—19.
ISSUES
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issues, which we discuss in the
order presented, are whether the Examiner errs in the rejection of:
(a) Claims 1 and 6 (Br. 9-10);
(b) Claims 2 and 7 (id. at 11—12);
(c) Claims 5 and 10 (id. at 12—13);
(d) Claims 16 and 18 (id. at 13—14);
(e) Claims 17 and 19 (id. at 14—15);
(f) Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 (id. at 15);
(g) Claim 11 (id. at 15—16);
(h) Claim 13 (id. at 16—17);
(i) Claim 14 (id. at 17—18); and
(j) Claims 12, 15, and 20 (id. at 19).
3
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions.
Instead, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the
Final Rejection from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the
Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1 and 6
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Pasha teaches or
suggests “updating a third node of a first virtualized service with a processor
and without user intervention based on a change while maintaining an
association between the third node of the first virtualized service and data
previously associated with the third node,” as recited by claim 1. Br. 9.
Appellants contend Pasha, which “merely discusses that a first contract 110
may allow open-ended inputs, whereas a second contract 140 may restrict
the number of inputs” {id.), “fails to discuss data previously associated with
the web service implementation 130 (the alleged third node).” Id. at 10.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by failing to explain how Pasha’s
teaching of “allowing [a] certain number of inputs to continue to
communicate with both versions of the web service implementation 130
discloses or renders obvious maintaining an association between a third node
and data previously associated with the third node.” Id.
The Examiner responds by finding that “Pasha teaches preservation of
changes are maintained via comments, commenting out portions of a method
(i.e. previous version is kept), and maintaining ‘valuable information’
4
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
regarding the changes of an update made to a service.” Ans. 13; see also id.
at 14 (citing Pasha 20, 62) and Final Act. 5 (citing Pasha Tflf 33—36, 72).
Appellants do not rebut the Examiner’s additional findings in the
Answer. We agree with the Examiner that the recited “method to update a
virtualized service” reads on Pasha’s disclosure of updating the software
implementations of web service contracts, and specifically that Pasha’s
conform module 150 corresponds the recited requirements for “finding a
change” by comparing nodes from two schemas. See Final Act. 3—5 (citing
Pasha 11 19, 26, 33-35, 73-75, Fig. 1).
Pasha discloses automatically preserving, with modifications, portions
of a software implementation (instructions and data) of a contract during the
process of implementing changes to create a new implementation. See, e.g.,
Pasha 1119-20. A “schema” is simply “a structured framework” (see, e.g.,
Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schema (last
visited August 16, 2017)), and ordinarily skilled artisans would have
understood that the instructions and data of Pasha’s software implementation
constitute the recited nodes of a schema. Pasha’s conform module 150
updates the instructions and data of a first web service contract
implementation to create a second implementation, which includes,
specifically, making modifications to and retaining prior information about
the instructions and data. Id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Pasha
teaches “updating a third node of a first virtualized service .. . while
maintaining an association between the third node . . . and data previously
associated with the third node,” as recited by claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and also of claim 6,
which Appellants argue on the same basis as claim 1.
5
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
Claims 2 and 7
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein the data
previously associated with the third node includes at least one of data
previously recorded by the third node or data previously supplied by a user
for the third node.” Br. 20 (Claims App’x).
Appellants argue the Examiner fails to consider that “claim 2 recites
that the data previously associated with the third node is either data
previously recorded by the third node or data previously supplied by a user
for the third node.” Id. at 11. Appellants further argue the Examiner “fails
to explain why one of ordinary skill in in the art, in possession of Pasha,
would have derived that an association between data previously recorded by
the third node or data previously supplied by a user for the third node would
be maintained.” Id. The Examiner responds that Pasha “teaches code of a
method (i.e. ‘data previously supplied by a user’) can be moved to a newly
implemented method.” Ans. 15 (citing Pasha H 20, 62); see also Final Act.
6 (citing Pasha H 25, 33—34).
We agree with the Examiner. Pasha specifically states that web
service implementations can include “user input or other parameters.” Pasha
138. As discussed above for claims 1 and 6, such user-supplied data would
be maintained across successive implementations by Pasha’s conform
module 150. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Pasha teaches that the
data previously associated with the third node includes “data previously
supplied by a user,” as recited in claim 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2, and also of claim 7,
which Appellants argue on the same basis as claim 2.
6
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
Claims 5 and 10
Claim 5 recites “[a] method as defined in claim 1, further comprising
updating data association parameters of the data to maintain the association
between the third node and the data.” Br. 20 (Claims App’x). The
Examiner finds Pasha’s paragraph 36, which discloses, among other things,
“modify[ing] business logic and/or method body code as required,” renders
obvious the added requirements of claim 5. Final Act. 8.
Appellants argue “[t]he business logic input module 165 does not,
however, update parameters of data previously associated with the web
service implementation 130, (i.e., the alleged third node) to maintain the
association between the implementation 130 and the previously associated
data. Br. 12.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. Appellants’ Specification
provides examples of “data association parameters” as “name parameters,
data type parameters, position parameters, etc.” Spec. 135. Relatedly,
Pasha discloses that updating a software implementation of a web service
contact variously can include preserving, removing, modifying, or “storing]
elsewhere for future reference” information such as a “method attribute” or
“other data structure.” Pasha | 62. We agree with the Examiner that the
plain meaning of “updating data association parameters of the data to
maintain the association,” as recited in claim 5 reads on Pasha’s disclosure
of updating attributes and data structures across successive implementations
of a web service. See Ans. 16—17.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 5, and also of claim 10,
which Appellants argue on the same basis as claim 5.
7
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
Claims 16 and 18
Claim 16 recites “[a] method as defined in claim 1, wherein the first
service schema corresponds to a first simulation model to implement the first
virtualized service, and the second service schema corresponds to an updated
simulation model to implement an updated virtualized service.” Br. 23
(Claims App’x). Appellants argue Pasha contains no mention of
“simulation” or “simulation model” and, thus, the Examiner errs in finding
Pasha teaches a service schema that corresponds to a simulation model to
implement a virtualized service, as recited. Id. at 13—14.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. It is well settled that a
reference need not in haec verba disclose a claim limitation—the question is
whether the claim distinguishes “in fact” over the prior art. In re
Neugebauer, 330 F.2d 353, 356 (CCPA 1964). We agree with the Examiner
that an ordinarily skilled artisan in fact would have understood Pasha’s
software implementation of a web services contract to be a “simulation
model” of the contract. Appellants do not explain how or why an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have understood there to be any difference between
“implementing a contract in software” and “simulating a contract in
software.”
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Pasha’s
updating of a web services contract constitutes updating “a virtualized
service.” See Final Act. 3. As discussed above for claim 1, an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have understood the structure of the software
implementation to correspond to the recited schema. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that Pasha’s disclosure of updating software implementations
of contracts teaches “the first service schema corresponds to a first
8
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
simulation model to implement the first virtualized service, and the second
service schema corresponds to an updated simulation model to implement an
updated virtualized service,” as recited in claim 16. See Final Act. 8—9; Ans.
17-18.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16, and also of claim
18, which Appellants argue on the same basis as claim 16.
Claims 17 and 19
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding “Pasha discloses or
renders obvious generating a simulation model, generating an updated
simulation model, or updating a virtualized service by generating an updated
simulation model,” as recited by claims 17 and 19, because “Pasha fails to
even mention such as simulation model or discuss such a model, albeit under
a different name.” Br. 14. For the reasons discussed above for claims 16
and 18, we sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 19.
Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 3,4, 8, and 9
solely for the same reasons as claims 1 and 6. Id. at 15. For the reasons
discussed above for claims 1 and 6, we sustain their rejection.
Claim 11
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Pasha teaches or
suggests “a model transformer to apply a first transformation to a first
simulation model of a virtualized service to generate a second simulation
model for the virtualized service,” as recited by claim 11, because “[a]s
discussed above for claims 16, 17, 18, and 19, however, Pasha fails to
disclose or render obvious a simulation model, as Pasha fails to mention the
9
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
word ‘simulate’ or ‘simulation[.]’ Moreover, Pasha fails to discuss a
simulation model, albeit under a different name.” Br. 15—16.
These arguments are unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s
mapping of Pasha’s “conform module 150 used to automatically evaluate
changes between the web service implementation 130 and the second
contract 140 and modify at least a portion of the implementation 130”
(Pasha 135) to the recited “model transformer.” See Final Act. 11. Also,
for the reasons discussed above for claims 16 and 18, we agree with the
Examiner that Pasha’s software implementation of a web service contract
teaches the recited “simulation model of a virtualized service.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 13
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Pasha teaches “the
model transformer is further to update data association properties of data
corresponding to one of the first nodes to maintain the data in association
with the second simulation model after applying the first transformation,” as
recited by claim 13, because “as discussed above in the discussion of claims
5 and 10, Pasha fails to disclose or render obvious updating data association
properties of data to maintain data in association after applying a
transformation.” Br. 17. Appellants further argue “[mjoreover, Pasha fails
to disclose or render obvious a simulation model, and as such, Pasha fails to
disclose or render obvious updating data to maintain the data in association
with a simulation model.” Id. We find these arguments unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed above for claims 5 and 10, and for claims 16 and 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13.
10
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
Claim 14
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Pasha teaches claim
14’s requirements for “generating the second simulation model results,” as
recited, because Pasha does not teach or suggest
generating a second simulation model, in general, or generating
a second simulation model, as specifically set forth in claim 14.
As discussed above, Pasha fails to disclose or render obvious
any such a simulation model, much less the generation thereof.
In this manner, as discussed above, Pasha fails to even mention
such as simulation model or discuss such a model, albeit under
a different name.
Br. 18.
This is unpersuasive. For the reasons discussed above for claims 16
and 18, we agree that Pasha’s software implementation of a web service
contract teaches the recited “simulation model of a virtualized service.”
Also, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, Pasha teaches a second web
services contract that maps to the recited second simulation model. See Ans.
21—22 (citing Pasha Tflf 27, 33 (identifying that Pasha explains the second
contract “updates, modifies, or otherwise fully replaces the first service
contract”)); see also Final Act. 15—16 (citing Pasha 36, 72). Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 14.
Claims 12, 15, and 20
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 12, 15, and 20
solely for the same reasons as claim 11. Br. 19. For the reasons discussed
above for claim 11, we sustain their rejection.
11
Appeal 2017-001945
Application 13/495,792
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1—20 under
§ 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
12