Ex Parte Asare et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 26, 201210725728 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012) Copy Citation 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. 10/725,728 12/02/2003 Kwasi Addo Asare RSW920030191US1 (123) 3074 46320 7590 07/26/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER BROPHY, MATTHEW J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte KWASI ADDO ASARE, ATTILA BARTA, RICHARD D. HUDDLESTON, and DANIEL EVERETT JEMIOLO ________________ Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and ANDREW CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judges. CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 2 SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1-17, all the claims pending in the application. We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants describe the present invention as directed to an application component distribution system used to install application components on a target platform. Spec. ¶ 0001. The application component distribution system includes a repository of semantic models for the application components. Abstract. A script generation engine generates a target specific set of instructions for a specified application component using a mapping of individual listings in the semantic models to target platform specific installation instructions. Id. Independent claims 1 and 5 are apparatus claims directed to an application component distribution system and a script generation system for use in the application component distribution system, respectively. Independent claim 8 is directed to a method for generating an installation script for installing an application component to a specified target platform. These claims are reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized. Since independent claim 13 is directed to a machine readable storage having stored thereon a program for performing the steps of method claim 8, it is not reproduced below. Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 3 1. An application component distribution system comprising: a repository of semantic models for interdependent ones of application components; a mapping of individual listings in said semantic models to target platform specific installation instructions; and, a script generation engine configured to produce a target specific set of instructions for a specified application component based upon a mapping of at least one of said semantic models in said repository. 5. A script generation engine comprising: a communicative coupling to a repository of semantic models for interdependent ones of application components configured for installation in a target platform; a mapping of individual listings in said semantic models to specific installation instruction for specific target platforms; and, a script composition processor programmed to produce a specific set of instructions for installing a specified one of the interdependent application components in a specified one of said target platforms based upon said mapping. 8. A method for generating an installation script for installing an application component to a specified target platform, the method comprising the steps of: retrieving a semantic model for the application component from a communicatively coupled repository of semantic models; determining from said semantic model, a set of dependent components required to be present in the specific target platform; further determining from said semantic model a set of resource requirements required to be met by the specific target platform; and, mapping said set of dependent components and said set of resource requirements into platform specific instructions in a platform specific installation script. Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 4 REJECTION Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Marino (US 6,681,391 B1; Jan. 20, 2004) in view of Bragulla (US 2004/0078793 A1; Apr. 22, 2004). CLAIMS 1-7 ARGUMENTS1 The Examiner finds that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Marino in view of Bragulla. Ans. 4-8, 13-18. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Marino’s data structure 230 corresponds to the repository of claim 1. Ans. 14. The Examiner also finds that Marino’s matrix of multiple dependency entries equates to the semantic models of claim 1. Id. Appellants argue, among other things, that a proper construction of claim 1 requires a repository including more than one semantic model and that each semantic model includes sub-components (i.e., individual listings). Reply Br. 2-4. Appellants argue that the combination of Marino in view of Bragulla fails to teach a repository as claimed. Id. 1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective details: the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed May 19, 2009; the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed September 11, 2009; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed November 12, 2009. Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 5 ISSUE Does the combination of Marino in view of Bragulla teach a repository of semantic models where each semantic model includes individual listings? ANALYSIS Our review of Marino leads us to conclude that Appellants are correct in their assertion that the combination of Marino in view of Bragulla fails to teach a repository of semantic models as in claim 1. Although the Examiner clearly finds that Marino’s data structure 230 corresponds to the repository of claim 1, the Answer is unclear as to what structure in Marino corresponds to the semantic model of claim 1. Ans. 14. The Examiner points to either Marino’s installation relationship matrix 226 or the dependency entries of the matrix 226 as the semantic model. Id. Regardless of whether the rejection is based on the former or the latter, we are persuaded that Marino does not teach a repository of semantic models as in claim 1. If we assume that the Examiner finds that Marino’s matrix 226 corresponds to the semantic model of claim 1, the rejection cannot be sustained. The language of claim 1 requires a repository of semantic models (i.e., more than one model). We see no probative evidence in Marino that the data structure 230 includes multiple matrices. Absent such evidence, Marino teaches, at best, a repository storing a single semantic model but not a repository of semantic models. If we alternatively assume that the Examiner finds that the dependency entries of the matrix 226 correspond to the semantic models, the rejection still cannot be sustained. The language of claim 1 requires each Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 6 semantic model to include a subcomponent – an individual listing. See claim 1, ll. 3-4. We see no probative evidence that the entries in Marino’s matrix 226 include a sub-component. Absent such evidence, Marino teaches, at best, plural semantic models but not semantic models including individual listings. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claim 5 includes similar limitations, and the rejection of claim 5 is reversed for the same reason. As to dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 7, since we do not sustain the rejection of the independent claims, we likewise, do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims. CLAIMS 8-17 ARGUMENTS The Examiner finds that claim 8 is unpatentable over the combination of Marino in view of Bragulla. Ans. 8-12, 18-20. Appellants argue that claim 8 is obvious over the combination of Marino in view of Bragulla for the following reasons: I. Marino does not teach a repository of semantic models for interdependent ones of application components. See App. Br. 13 (incorporating argument for claim 1 on pp. 10-11). II. Marino does not teach a mapping of individual listings in said semantic models to target platform specific instructions. See App. Br. 13 (incorporating argument for claim 1 on pp. 11-12). Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 7 III. Marino does not teach the step of determining from said semantic model, a set of dependent components required to be present in the target platform. App. Br. 13-14. Each of Appellants’ arguments is addressed below. ANALYSIS Argument I As to whether Marino teaches a repository of semantic models for interdependent ones of application components, Appellants have not identified error in the rejection. The language of claim 8 differs from claim 1. Although claim 8 may refer to a “repository of semantic models,†claim 8 does not require the semantic models to be “for interdependent ones of application components.†Since the specific language upon which Appellants rely is not recited in claim 8, the general argument that Marino does not teach the claim limitation is unpersuasive. In addition to the general argument, Appellants provide two supporting rationales explaining why the Examiner erred in rejecting the claim. Neither rationale is persuasive. First, Appellants argue that Marino does not teach a repository including a plurality of semantic models. App. Br. 10. This argument is unpersuasive in view of Appellants’ statements on pages 3-4 of the Reply Brief where Appellants argue that the plurality of entries in Marino’s Installation Relationship Matrix 226 cannot be semantic models because they do not include sub-components (i.e., individual listings). Claim 8 differs from claim 1 because it does not include the language requiring the semantic models to include individual listings. Claim 8 therefore, does not Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 8 require a repository of plural semantic models where each model includes a subcomponent (i.e., an individual listing). Given this difference in claim language, we are persuaded that the plurality of dependency entries in Marino’s matrix 226 can teach a plurality of semantic models as in claim 8. Second, Appellants argue that Marino does not teach “semantic models for interdependent ones of application components.†App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that since Marino states that there is no requirement that components be related or represented as a single tree or connected graph, Marino’s components are not interdependent. Id. Although Marino may teach that components need not be related, Marino also teaches that components can have a dependency relationship. Col. 7, ll. 52-63. Argument II As to whether Marino teaches a mapping of individual listings in said semantic models to target platform specific instructions, Appellants have not identified error in the rejection. Appellants make this argument when they incorporate by reference the arguments made in the Appeal Brief with respect to claim 1 into their discussion of claim 8. App. Br. 13. We note, however, that the language of claim 8 differs from claim 1. Although claim 8 may refer to a “mapping,†the claim does not include language directed to mapping individual listings in a semantic model to target platform specific instructions. Instead, claim 8 includes the step of “mapping . . . dependent components and . . . resource requirements into platform specific instructions.†Claim 8 does not require the semantic models to include individual listings. Since the specific language upon Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 9 which Appellants rely is not recited in claim 8, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection. In addition to the general argument, Appellants provide two supporting rationales explaining why the Examiner erred in rejecting the claim. Neither rationale is persuasive. First, Appellants argue that Marino fails to teach any mapping or translation of information from data structure 230 and installation order list 232. In addition, Appellants cite a portion of Marino that describes the initialization of data structure 230 and installation order list 232. App. Br. 11. Appellants contend that these data structures are independently initialized is evidence that there is no “translation†of data structure 230 to installation order list 232. This argument is unpersuasive because it ignores other evidence. After Marino’s data structures are initialized the dependency information in a dependency matrix (i.e., installation- relationship matrix 226 in data structure 230) is used to generate an installation order list. Col. 10, ll. 12-29. Second, Appellants contend that Marino fails to teach a target platform since there is a fundamental difference between the components (i.e., applications) that run on a computing platform and the platform itself. App. Br. 12. This argument is unpersuasive since it is inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification, which explains that target platforms can range from an operating system to an application hosted within an individual application hosting environment. Spec. ¶ 0020. Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 10 Argument III As to whether Marino teaches the step of “determining from said semantic model, a set of dependent components required to be present in the specific target platform,†Appellants have not identified error in the rejection. Appellants provide three supporting rationales explaining why Marino does not teach this step of claim 8. First, Appellants argue that a specific portion of Marino cited by the Examiner does not describe that anything is obtained from data structure 230. App. Br. 13. This argument is unpersuasive because it ignores Marino’s teaching that dependency information in a dependency matrix (i.e., installation-relationship matrix 226 in data structure 230) is used to generate an installation order list. Col. 10, ll. 12-29. Second, Appellants argue that since the data structure 230 and installation order list 232 are created at the same time, the installation order list is not derived, or determined, from data structure 230. App. Br. 13. The specific portion of Marino cited by Appellants to support this argument describes the initialization process. Even if the data structure and the list are independently initialized, Appellants’ argument ignores the fact that dependency information in a dependency matrix (i.e., installation- relationship matrix 226 stored in data structure 230) is later used to generate an installation order list. Col. 10, ll. 12-29. Third, Appellants argue that Marino’s installation order list does not teach a set of dependent components since there is no requirement that components be related or represented as a single tree or connected graph, Marino’s components are not interdependent. App. Br. 13-14. Although Appeal 2010-003553 Application 10/725,728 11 Marino may teach that components need not be related, Marino also teaches that components may have a dependency relationship. Col. 7, ll. 52-63. Since we are not persuaded that Appellants have identified error in the rejection of claim 8, the rejection is sustained. Since claims 9-17 stand or fall together with claim 8, the rejection of those claims is also sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED-IN-PART babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation