Ex Parte Boyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

12116369 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/116,369 05/07/2008 John M. Boyer
45544 7590 03/30/2016
HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
540 Broadway
4THFLOOR
ALBANY, NY 12207
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.
CA920080011US1 6948
EXAMINER
HUDA, MOHAMMED NURUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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):
PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN M. BOYER, ERIC DUNN, SARAH R. PUGH, and
BRAAMP. SMITH
Appeal2014-004140
Application 12/116,369
Technology Center 2100
Before BETH Z. SHAW, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 16. Claims
2, 6, 10, and 14 have been canceled. See App. Br. 15-20. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-004140
Application 12/116,369
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention relates to preserving a state of an application
during an update of the application. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for preserving a state of
an application during update, comprising:
providing an initial document template tagged by a name
which is unique to the initial document template and a current
version number to represent an initial state of the application;
instantiating the application by providing a user with a
copy of the initial document template, the instantiating yielding
an instantiated document;
allowing the user to interact with the instantiated
document;
performing a check for updates of the application at times
in a document run time that are specified by at least one of; a
document run-time processor and the instantiated document; and
updating the application if the currently instantiated
document application version is not a latest available version of
the application, as follows:
obtaining a latest version of the initial document
template:
obtaining a transformation description for
converting end-user data in the instantiated document to
an updated schema format, if an end-user data schema of
the application has been changed,
creating a newly instantiated document on the latest
version of the initial document template for the
application,
2
Appeal2014-004140
Application 12/116,369
transforming the end-user data using the
transformation description if one was given, placing the
end-user data or transformed end-user data into the newly
instantiated document in the updated schema format, and
replacing the instantiated document for the
application with the new instantiated document for the
application in the end-user experience.
Rejection2
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over D' Angelo (US 2008/0022271 Al,
published Jan. 24, 2008) and Wetherly (US 2006/0236317 Al, published
Oct. 19, 2006). Final Act. 5-27.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 5-29; Ans. 26-33. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Issue: Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of
D 'Angelo and Weatherly teaches or suggests "performing a check for
updates of the application at times in a document run time that are specified
2 The rejections of claims 9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, have been withdrawn. Ans. 2-3.
3
Appeal2014-004140
Application 12/116,369
by at least one of~ a document run-time processor and the instantiated
document" (hereinafter "the disputed limitation"), as recited in claim 1?
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds W etherly
teaches checking for updates in accordance with a predetermined schedule
or when an application is launched on a terminal device. Final Act. 8 (citing
Wetherly i-f 57); Ans. 28. Based on this finding, the Examiner concludes
W etherly teaches or suggests "performing a check for updates of the
application at times in a document run time that are specified by at least one
of; a document run-time processor and the instantiated document," as recited
in claim 1. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wetherly teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation because "simply checking for updates when
an application is launched fails to explicitly teach or suggest performing a
check for updates in a document run time specified by at least one of: a
document run-time processor and the instantiated document." App. Br. 8.
Appellants contend W etherly instead teaches that update notification
messages are sent out by the developer and therefore teaches away from the
disputed limitation. App. Br. 9--10 (citing Wetherly i-fi-147-51). Appellants
further contend Wetherly fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation
because "Wetherly does not disclose a document run-time processor, and
therefore it is not obvious that this [checking for updates specified by a
document run-time processor] is specified by Wetherly." Reply Br. 2.
Appellants further contend:
[E]ven assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner's assumption is
correct, which Appellants expressly do not concede, Wetherly
would only teach checking for updates at a single time, not
Appellants' claimed "times in a document run time." Appellants
4
Appeal2014-004140
Application 12/116,369
claim checking for updates at plural times in a document run
time, and W etherly, at best, would teach a single time, as the
Examiner specified that when Wetherly's "application is
launched implies at run-time." (Examiner's Answer, Page 6).
Therefore, W etherly can only be interpreted to disclose a single
time of checking for an update according to the Examiner's
interpretation of W etherly.
Reply Br. 3.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Wetherly teaches
two scenarios for distributing updates to applications. W etherly i-f 4 7.
Wetherly describes a first distribution scenario that is initiated by an
application gateway (Wetherly i-fi-1 48-56) and a second distribution scenario
that is initiated by a terminal device (Wetherly i-fi-1 57-61 ). With respect to
the second distribution scenario, Wetherly teaches "the triggering event is
when the terminal device logs onto the AG [application gateway] 2,
although other events may also be used." Wetherly i-f 57 (emphasis added).
Wetherly teaches that these other events include the run-time environment
(RE) sending a message in accordance with a predetermined schedule or
when an application is launched on the terminal device. Id. As such,
Wetherly teaches or suggests performing a check for updates of the
application at multiple times in a document run time-when the application
logs onto the application gateway and when the application is launched on
the terminal device. Wetherly teaches that the terminal device includes
microprocessor 16 that "operates under software control to provide the
functionality of the terminal device, i.e., to enable one or more application(s)
30 to run on the device." Wetherly i-f 25. As such, Wetherly teaches or
suggests that the check for updates is performed by a time specified by a
run-time processor (e.g., microprocessor 16 operating under software control
5
Appeal2014-004140
Application 12/116,369
to enable the application to run on the terminal device).
Appellants' contention regarding W etherly teaching away from the
disputed limitation is unpersuasive because it only addresses W etherly' s
teachings regarding the first distribution scenario and fails to address
Wetherly's teachings regarding the second distribution scenario, upon which
the Examiner relies for teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1; independent claims 5, 9, and 13, which recite similar
limitations and are not separately argued with particularity; and claims 3, 4,
7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which depend from claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 and are
not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 10-14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15,
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
6