Ex Parte Yung

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13411555 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/411,555 03/03/2012
23899 7590
DOUGLAS L WELLER
1832 Rosemary Drive
Gilroy, CA 95020
09/26/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John C. Yung
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.
1071 9781
EXAMINER
DENG, ANNA CHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
patents@dougweller.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN C. YUNG
Appeal2015-006961
Application 13/411,555
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 6-10 and 16-25. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Claims 1-5 and 11-15 have been canceled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2015-006961
Application 13/411,555
TI'-JVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to creating an application manifest
for each application of an application stack and using translated application
manifests thereof to construct the application stack. Spec., Abstract.
6. A computer implemented method for launching an
application stack on a cloud platform environment, comprising:
creating an application manifest for each application in the
application stack, wherein the application stack includes a
plurality of applications so that a plurality of application
manifests are created when launching the application stack;
including in the application manifest for each application,
dependency information indicating application relationships and
dependencies;
translating each application manifest in the plurality of
application manifests into a format useful to a server automation
tool; and,
utlllzmg the transiated appiication mamtests to construct the
application stack within the cloud platform environment.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19-22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Shukla (US 2012/0159425 Al;
June 21, 2012) and McCollum (US 2005/0091647 Al; Apr. 28, 2005). Final
Act. 3-8.
Claims 8, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Shukla, McCollum, and Spivak (US 2012/0266168 Al; Oct.
18, 2012). Final Act. 8-9.
2
Appeal2015-006961
Application 13/411,555
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Shukla and
McCollum teaches or suggests: (i) an application manifest for each
application of an application stack ("application manifest" limitation); and
(ii) including in the application manifest for each application, dependency
information indicating application relationships and dependencies
("dependency information" limitation), as recited in independent claim 6?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
contentions. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We agree
with, and adopt as our own, the findings and reasoning the Examiner
provides for independent claims 6, 16, and 21. We note the following for
emphasis.
Appellant presents two principal arguments against the Examiner's
conclusion that Shukla and McCollum suggest the "application manifold"
and "dependency information" limitations. First, Appellant argues Shukla's
composite application and included components cannot suggest the claimed
application stack and included applications because: in Shukla there is no
application stack where applications in the stack interact together and have
dependencies on each other; and Shukla's single composite application has
multiple application components, but only a single application manifest.
App. Br. 12, 16-17. Second, Appellant argues McCollum's applications
with respective manifests cannot suggest the claimed applications with
respective manifests because McCollum' s applications are independent of
3
Appeal2015-006961
Application 13/411,555
one another and, accordingly, the manifests would not indicate dependencies
between the applications (as is claimed). Id. at 18-19. We are not
persuaded by these arguments.
The Examiner finds that Shukla teaches an application manifest that
includes dependency information indicating application relationships and
dependencies. Final Act. 4; Ans. 11-12. The Examiner relies on McCollum
to teach creating an application manifest for each application (a plurality of
manifests). See Ans. 12-13. We agree with the Examiner's findings. In
particular, Shukla describes creating an application manifest for a composite
application that includes information describing the various relationships
and dependencies between the components. See Shukla i-fi-123, 33-34.
Contrary to Appellant's arguments, Shukla's components are expressly
described as at times being "entire applications." Shukla i122. Thus, Shukla
teaches a manifest for each application (component) in the application stack
(composite application) and including dependency information indicating
application (component) relationships and dependencies. Taking Shukla's
above teachings in view of McCollum, which expressly teaches pairing of
applications with respective manifests for determining dependencies during
installations (McCollum i-fi-136, 189, 202-3), we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Shukla and McCollum teaches or suggests the
"application manifest" and "dependency information" limitations.
Appellant's asserted deficiencies of Shukla and McCollum individually are
unpersuasive as the Examiner relies on the combined teachings as explained
above. Non-obviousness cannot be shown by attacking references
individually where combined to reach the disputed subject matter. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
4
Appeal2015-006961
Application 13/411,555
The Reply Brief presents two principal arguments in response to the
Examiner's Answer. First, Appellant argues the Examiner presents
unreasonable claim term interpretations of "application dependency" and
"application" in reading the claimed application stack of applications on
Shukla's composite application of components. See Reply Br. 5-8. Second,
Appellant argues the Examiner fails to understand that neither Shukla nor
McCollum teaches an application stack of interdependent applications. Id.
at 11. These arguments are also not persuasive. As emphasized within the
Answer, the Examiner's conclusions are premised upon viewing Shukla's
components as interdependent applications and accordantly viewing
Shukla's composite application as an "application stack" grouping of
applications. Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner that Shukla's
components, which are described as at times being interdependent
applications, can be reasonably interpreted as applications and the composite
application can reasonably be interpreted as an application stack.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant fails to persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of: (1) claim 6; (2) independent claims 16 and 21, for which
Appellant relies on the same arguments made for claim 6; and (3) dependent
claims 7-10, 17-20, and 22-25, which are not argued separately.
5
Appeal2015-006961
Application 13/411,555
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to rejection claims 6-10 and 16-25 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6