Ex Parte Asare et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

10725728 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

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