Ex Parte Wohlberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201612127435 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/127,435 05/27/2008 72058 7590 08/31/2016 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tim Wahlberg 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. 58083/354699 B715 8453 EXAMINER APONTE, FRANCISCO JAVIER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2199 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2016 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): ipefiling@kilpatrickstockton.com j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIM WOHLBERG, KLAAS STOECKMANN, KAI ORTMANNS, and SOEREN AMMEDICK Appeal2015-005065 Application 12/127,435 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. YAP, 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, 2, 5, 7-11, and 13-25, which are all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems Incorporated. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Claims 3, 4, 6, and 12 were previously cancelled. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2015-005065 Application 12/127,435 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention relates "generally to the field of computing and specifically to computing applications used on multiple computing environments." (May 27, 2008 Specification ("Spec.") i-f 1.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving an output task plug-in specifying output implementation details for outputting to an environment associated with the output task plug-in, the output task plug-in received at a computer software tool for outputting an application to one or more environments, the output implementation details being related to packaging the application for a particular device associated with the environment; providing an interface for the user to define an output task associated with the output task plug-in, wherein the interface is provided on the computer software tool, and wherein execution of the output task results in the output of the application to the environment; receiving, from a user, output parameters associated with the output task, wherein the output parameters specify multiple files to be packaged in the application; making the output task available for use on the computer software tool; in response to receiving a command to perform the output task: creating a packaged application comprising the multiple files in accordance with the output implementation details specified by the output task plug-in; and outputting the packaged application from the computer software tool to the environment associated with the 2 Appeal2015-005065 Application 12/127,435 output task plug-in m accordance with the output implementation details. Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Wilkinson et al. ("Wilkinson") Fors et al. ("Fors") Batabyal US 8,010,701 B2 US 2008/0028390 Al US 2008/0052341 Al Aug. 30, 2011 Jan. 31, 2008 Feb.28,2008 Claims 9-11 and 12-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Wilkinson. (See Final Office Action (mailed Feb. 27, 2014) ("Final Act.") 3-10.) Claims 1-2, 5, 7,3 8, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fors in view of Batabyal. (See Final Act. 11- 17.) Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilkinson. (See Final Act. 17-20.) Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilkinson in view ofBatabyal. (See Final Act. 20-21.) 3 Appellants listed claim 7 in the Status of Claims as a claim that is under appeal but did not discuss it in their arguments regarding this rejection. (See App. Br. 3, 12, 14.) For the purpose of this decision, we assume that Appellants' arguments regarding this rejection also applies to this claim. 3 Appeal2015-005065 Application 12/127,435 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, and 13-25. Claims 9-11, 13-23, and 25 Argument One Wilkinson Does Not Disclose, Teach, or Suggest Providing a User Interface for SpecifYing I Receiving Output Parameters With respect to claim 9, Appellants contend that: [t]he user interface discussed in Wilkinson does not allow the user to specify any parameters, and parameters discussed in Wilkinson are not associated with any user-defined output tasks [while the claims] specify that a user is able to specify that a user is able to specify parameters and define output tasks, the parameters discussed in Wilkinson are extracted from scripts associated with the applications. (App. Br. 10, emphasis in original.) The Examiner, on the other hand, finds that "Wilkinson provides an interface for the administrator or 'user' the capability to specify the parameters for the configuration and the necessary files to be mapped for the output of an application as disclosed in column 8, line 13." (Ans. 22-23.) According to the Examiner, Figure 16 of "Wilkinson explains how by utilizing some user's parameters such as location, type of environment, etc. the system can identify and create a package for the application that will be deployed." (Ans. 24--25.) For example, "[i]n step 1602, the administrator creates a package object with all of the attributes for installation, upgrading, and removal of the 4 Appeal2015-005065 Application 12/127,435 corresponding application ... such attributes may include a path to physical files, the type of package, status codes, or other information." (Id., emphasis added.) Appellants, however, contend that the Examiner erred in making these determinations because the portions of Wilkinson the Examiner points to "do[] not contemplate allowing a user to enter any output parameters at all." (Reply 3.) We agree with the Examiner's finding that Wilkinson discloses an interface for specifying I receiving output parameters. For example, we agree with the Examiner that step 1602 in Figure 16 disclose that the administrator can enter output parameters. This is confirmed in Figure 17, which "is an example screen display that shows various properties that can be set for a package" in step 1602. (Wilkinson, 20: 1-10, emphasis added.) Figure 17 of Wilkinson is reproduced below. 1702 \... ,---'--<, 1704 li«lf"S.p-loe-WorMM!n.th • [Qlim 1 5 a_CTK_'l 6 9 ntsij ,.,.. " G.J~l8J ? R ~ tc~ 1 , ~ , • ,. • .:;: • dlf. .. . 1;.i.l§F«s-·1~ ~-~_&il'i: """'".' .. 1703 ,; ~ ;:,~" ,._.; ; '-~-CO•l~( ~@l'Hf..m : ,,!"''" ~ $~ u~~-~ ~ f~i •ss .. 1 :. • fid:i~ Cre=.m~1:i; .• ~~c~~:tr~1c. ~··: .. ·:.~·(C~~~~fi~~t~:t:~~~.: .. · ...... --- . ... . --- . . . . -- -- .. -- . ··:: __ ,_~ ___ J Fig. 17 5 Appeal2015-005065 Application 12/127,435 Figure 17 depicts "various properties that can be set for a package." (Wilkinson, 2 :45--46.) Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Argument Two Wilkinson Does Not Disclose, Teach, or Suggest Output Parameters Appellants next contend that "the parameters discussed in Wilkinson are not associated with output tasks and do not result in outputting any application to a device." (App. Br. 11.) Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As discussed above, Wilkinson discloses that "[i]n step 1602, the administrator [can] creates a package object with all of the attributes for installation, upgrading, and removal of the corresponding application ... such attributes may include a path to physical files, the type of package, status codes, or other information." (Wilkinson, 19:50-20:10, emphasis added; Ans. 24--25.) Moreover, Appellants have not offered persuasive argument that the Examiner's interpretation is either overbroad or unreasonable. (Ans. 3, 6.) SeelnreZletz, 893 F.2d319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Furthermore, as shown in Figure 6 of the Specification, "files-to- copy" can be an output parameter. (Spec., Fig. 6, i-f 33.) For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 9. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 9, as well as claims 10, 11 and 13-22, which are not argued separately. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claim 23 and 25, which also depend on claim 9 and are also not argued separately. (Id.) 6 Appeal2015-005065 Application 12/127,435 Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 8, and 24 Argument One Batabyal Does Not Teach, or Suggest Providing an Interface for Defining an Output Task That Results in Output of an Application With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that while "Fors does not explicitly state - providing an interface for the user to define an output task associated with the output task plug-in ... , Batabyal discloses a system and application design model for deploying independent self-describing modules for assisting multiple processes and composite solutions in a business environment." (Final Act. 12-13.) Appellants, however, contend that the Examiner erred because [a]t most, the plug-in modules referred to in Batabyal refer to modules for mapping business capabilities to a platform. The Final Office Action errs in suggesting that the mapping or deployment of business capabilities to different platforms or environments suggests an interface for defining an output task that results in the output of an application. Batabyal does not teach or even contemplate any capability to define an output task that results in the output of an application. (App. Br. 12-13, emphasis added.) The Examiner disagrees and finds that the: Batabayal [sic] disclosure is directed to a service provider interface in which said interface facilitates the build and deploy of applications to different platforms and environments, said interface permits the user to interact with the framework to configure or define the services needed to build the applications, deploy the application and provide the service as disclosed on page 5, paragraphs [ 0140]-[015 3]. (Ans. 26-28.) 7 Appeal2015-005065 Application 12/127,435 Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Batabyal teaches or suggests "a plurality of plug-in modules for performing different functions, and is capable of being used on different platforms including, BEA®, IBM®, SAP®, JBoss® Application Server, Oracle® Application Server, and SUN® Application Server." (Batabyal, Abstract.) We agree with the Examiner's finding that Batabyal teaches or suggests an interface that permits the user to interact with the framework to define an output task, which results in the out of the application to the environment. For example, Batabyal describes an interface whereby "[t]he user [can] input[] his requirements on the screen and submits a form" and the application can be automatically "buil[t] and deploy[ ed] to multiple environments" by a "single-click." (Batabyal, i-fi-f 140, 152; see id. at i-fi-f 139-147 (regarding "Interaction Between the Sub-Framework"), 148-153 (regarding "Complete Application Management (CAM)").) Argument Two Failure to Articulate a Sufficient Reason Regarding Combination The Examiner finds that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to aggregate Fors' multi-platform software installation method, with Batabyal's development and deployment tool in which an interface is provided to facilitate the proper package generation per user's requirements which includes easing discovery, identification, and consumer's architecture utilization for a multi-component application execution." (Final Act. 15.) Appellants, however, contend that the Examiner "fail[ ed] to articulate a sufficient reason supported by evidence of record" to support the combination. (App. Br. 13.) Appellants explain that the "alleged reason for combining the references is irrelevant to the features of the proposed 8 Appeal2015-005065 Application 12/127,435 combination [and] one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Fors' and Batabyal in order to ease discovery, identification, and consumer architecture utilization for a multi-component application execution." (App. Br. 13-14.) The Examiner disagrees and points out that there is no requirement for "record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art." (Ans. 28-30.) Furthermore, according to the Examiner, the Final Office Action "provided what is the deficiency of the prior art and what would have been obvious to do to address said limitation[, therefore,] sufficient articulated reason was provided for the combination of references." (Ans. 31, emphasis omitted.) Appellants do not reply. Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. We find that the Examiner has articulated a reasoning with a rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would combine Fors and Batabyal. (Final Act. 15; Ans. 28-31.) See KSR Int'! Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 418 (2007). Moreover, Appellants' assertion is mere attorney argument, which is unsupported by factual evidence. Thus, it is entitled to little probative value. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 24, which are not argued separately. (App. Br. 14.) 9 Appeal2015-005065 Application 12/127,435 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 7-11, and 13-25 is 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 )(iv). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation