Travis S. Tripp et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2019

14783524 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2019)

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.
14/783,524 10/09/2015 Travis S. Tripp 90031145 1584
56436 7590 11/04/2019
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
THATCHER, CLINT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2019 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):
chris.mania@hpe.com
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TRAVIS S. TRIPP, KEVIN LEE WILSON, and
JOSEPH PAUL REVES
Appeal 2018-007388
Application 14/783,524
Technology Center 2100

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Development LP, a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007388
Application 14/783,524
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to “a method for developing applications
with a platform tier.” Spec. ¶ 11.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A computer program product for coordinating applications
deployment with a platform tier, comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, said
non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising
computer readable program code embodied therewith, said
computer readable program code comprising program
instructions that, when executed, causes a processor to:
identify, from a search of identification tags in a
capabilities library of a plurality of platform tiers, a
platform tier of the plurality of platform tiers that has at
least some capabilities that match application requests
specific to an application embodied in an application layer,
wherein the identification tags are associated with
capabilities of the plurality of platform tiers, and wherein
each of the platform tiers is a group of servers that is set
up to use a common operating system or common
programs;
deploy said application to said identified platform
tier; and
perform a development task on said application in
said identified platform tier with said capabilities.
REFERENCE AND REJECTION
Claims 1–10 and 12–21 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Yousouf (US 2013/0346945 A1; pub. Dec. 26, 2013). See
Ans. 3–8.
Appeal 2018-007388
Application 14/783,524
3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response,
supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the contentions raised by
Appellant. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (see Final Act. 2–7)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3–12). However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Claim 1
Yousouf discloses an environment for deploying a software
application on a cloud computing platform providing a platform product.
See Yousouf ¶ 18. As found by the Examiner, Yousouf discloses:
[I]dentify[ing], from a search of identification tags in a
capabilities library of a plurality of platform tiers, a platform
tier of the plurality of platform tiers that has at least some
capabilities that match application requests specific to an
application embodied in an application layer, wherein the
identification tags are associated with capabilities of the
plurality of platform tiers, and wherein each of the platform
tiers is a group of servers that is set up to use a common
operating system or common programs,
as recited in independent claim 1. See Ans. 2–4.
More specifically, Yousouf discloses a deployment request is sent to
an orchestrator to deploy application artifacts on a cloud computing
platform, where the deployment request is a request to deploy and execute a
software application on the cloud computing platform. See Yousouf ¶ 19.
Appeal 2018-007388
Application 14/783,524
4
Yousouf further discloses a deploy service that receives the deployment
request and analyzes application artifacts to determine application artifact
requirements. See Yousouf ¶ 20. The deploy service creates an application
repository and publishes application metadata and application artifacts in an
application repository. See Yousouf ¶ 22. The application metadata
describes requirements of the application artifacts and their provided
capabilities, where the requirements include requirements for functionality
provided by a cloud computing platform used for deploying the software
application. See Yousouf ¶ 23. Further, a product description is created to
define an application product for the software application that is developed
on top of functionality provided by a cloud computing platform. See
Yousouf ¶ 29. The connection between the application product and a
platform product may be defined with an additional entry in a product
reference (e.g., “p2.inf file”). See Yousouf ¶ 30. The p2.inf file is used to
specify the platform product that can be used to provide the application
artifact requirements of the application artifacts that are defined in the
application metadata. See Yousouf ¶ 31, Table 4. Alternatively, the p2.inf
file specifies the required functionality provided by the platform product.
See Yousouf ¶ 32, Table 5.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s findings fail to establish that
Yousouf discloses the aforementioned element of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9;
see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant specifically argues the Examiner erred in
finding the claimed “identification tags” are merely information, and, thus,
the Examiner failed to establish that Yousouf discloses “identification tags”
or the search of identification tags. See Appeal Br. 8. Further, Appellant
argues the Examiner erred in equating Yousouf’s platform with the claimed
“platform tier,” and, thus, the Examiner also failed to establish that Yousouf
Appeal 2018-007388
Application 14/783,524
5
discloses a platform tier that has at least some capabilities that match
application requests is identified from a search of identification tags in a
capabilities library. See id.; see also Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. A claim
under examination is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the underlying specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Regarding the claimed “identification
tags,” claim 1 recites that “the identification tags are associated with
capabilities of the plurality of platform tiers,” but does not further define the
claimed “identification tags.” Consistent with the aforementioned recitation
of claim 1, Appellant’s Specification describes that a requested capability
“can be associated with an identification tag in [a] . . . capabilities library.”
Spec. ¶ 17; see also Spec. ¶ 25. Appellant’s Specification also describes that
a tag can be a type of metadata that includes a property and a value. See
Spec. ¶¶ 26, 29. As previously described, Yousouf discloses application
metadata that describes capabilities provided by a cloud computing platform
used for deploying the software application. See Yousouf ¶ 23. In light of
the fact that Appellant’s argument does not distinguish the claimed
“identification tags” from Yousouf’s application metadata, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Yousouf’s application metadata teaches the claimed
“identification tags.”
Further, regarding the claimed “platform tier,” claim 1 recites that the
platform tier “is a group of servers that is set up to use a common operating
system or common programs.” Consistently, Appellant’s Specification
describes that a platform includes “one or [more] multiple tiers,” and “[e]ach
tier is made of a group of servers that can be set up to use a common
operating system and/or common programs.” Spec. ¶ 16. As found by the
Appeal 2018-007388
Application 14/783,524
6
Examiner, Yousouf discloses a cloud computing platform that refers to “one
or more connected computer systems that provide [a] necessary environment
for development, deployment and starting of a software product.” Ans. 4–5
(citing Yousouf ¶ 37). Because Appellant’s argument does not distinguish
the claimed “platform tier” from Yousouf’s cloud computing platform, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Yousouf’s cloud computing platform
teaches the claimed “platform tier.”
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding Yousouf discloses the disputed elements of claim
1.
Claims 12 and 15
The Examiner rejected independent claims 12 and 15 on the same
basis as claim 1, because, as found by the Examiner, claims 12 and 15 recite
substantially the same subject matter as claim 1. See Ans. 8. Appellant
argues the rejections are in error because claims 12 and 15 recite elements
that differ from the elements recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10; see also
Reply Br. 4. More specifically, Appellant argues claim 12 recites
“associat[ing] the existing capabilities of the platform tiers with
identification tags,” and “stor[ing] the identification tags in a capabilities
library, wherein each of the platform tiers is a group of servers that is set up
to use a common operating system or common programs,” claim 15 recites
similar elements, and none of the above-referenced elements of claims 12
and 15 are explicitly recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10–11; see also
Reply Br. 4. In response, the Examiner finds the above-referenced elements
of claims 12 and 15 are substantially similar to “wherein the identification
tags are associated with capabilities of the plurality of platform tiers,” and
Appeal 2018-007388
Application 14/783,524
7
“identify[ing], from a search of identification tags in a capabilities library,”
as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 10–11.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. With respect to
“associat[ing] the existing capabilities of the platform tiers with
identification tags,” as recited in claim 12, and a similar element recited in
claim 15, we conclude that the Examiner has shown that Yousouf discloses
these elements as well. As described above and found by the Examiner,
Yousouf discloses application metadata that describes capabilities provided
by a cloud computing platform used for deploying the software application.
See Yousouf ¶ 23. In describing the capabilities of the cloud computing
platform, the application metadata is associated with the capabilities of the
cloud computing platform.
Further, with respect to “stor[ing] the identification tags in a
capabilities library, wherein each of the platform tiers is a group of servers
that is set up to use a common operating system or common programs,” and
a similar element, recited in claim 15, the Examiner has also shown that
Yousouf discloses these elements. As described above and found by the
Examiner, Yousouf discloses a deploy service publishing the application
metadata in an application repository. See Yousouf ¶ 22. In publishing the
application metadata in the application repository, the deploy service stores
the metadata in the application repository.
In light of the above, we conclude the Examiner did not err in relying
upon the analysis of claim 1 to support the rejection of claims 12 and 15.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12
and 15.
Appeal 2018-007388
Application 14/783,524
8
Claim 3
In rejecting claim 3, the Examiner finds Yousouf discloses deploying
a software application on a Platform-as-a-Service (“PaaS”), where an
application that is deployed on a PaaS is provisioned and ready to be
installed and started, where the provisioning process prepares the software
application components together with the right configuration in the
execution environment, and where the PaaS is a cloud computing platform.
See Ans. 5–6 (citing Yousouf ¶¶ 3, 13). Appellant contends Yousouf’s PaaS
does not pertain to the claimed “identified platform tier,” recited in claim 3.
See Appeal Br. 12. This is not persuasive. As the Examiner found, Yousouf
discloses the PaaS is a computing platform that includes an operating
system, programming language execution environment, database, and web
server, and further discloses the provisioning process prepares the software
application together with the right configuration in the execution
environment, so that the software application can be installed and started.
See Ans. 5–6 (citing Yousouf at ¶¶ 3, 13). In light of this disclosure, we
agree with the Examiner that Yousouf’s PaaS teaches the claimed “identified
platform tier,” recited in claim 3. Thus, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding Yousouf discloses all the elements of claim 3.
Summary
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding Yousouf discloses the disputed
elements of claims 1, 3, 12, and 15. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, and 15, as well as the remaining
claims which are not argued separately or with sufficient specificity (see
Appeal Br. 7–12).
Appeal 2018-007388
Application 14/783,524
9
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12–
21
102(a)(2) Yousouf 1–10, 12–
21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2017).
AFFIRMED