Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201713944668 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2017) 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. 13/944,668 07/17/2013 Stella Guizhen Chen 4411.C10US1 2794 49845 7590 05/25/2017 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER LUU, BINH K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2017 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): USPTO@SLWIP.COM SLW @blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STELLA GUIZHEN CHEN and DONGSHENG XIE Appeal 2016-007559 Application 13/944,6681 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 5—7, 9-11, 13—15, 17, and 19, which constitute all claims pending in the application. Claims 2-4, 8, 12, 16, 18, and 20 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as PayPal, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-007559 Application 13/944,668 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention The claimed invention relates to a system and method for automatically testing an application on multiple mobile devices, which may be running different operating systems, at the same time. Spec. 2—3. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving, at a server, a test script to test an application installed in a plurality of devices, the plurality of devices including a respective agent module of a plurality of agent modules installed therein; detecting, by a detector module of the server using the respective agent modules, one or more operating systems respectively used in each of the plurality of devices; converting, by an Application Programming Interface (API) of the server, using one or more processors, the test script into one or more test commands compatible to the one or more operating systems; transmitting, by a transmitter module of the server, the one or more commands to the plurality of agent modules respectively based on the one or more operating systems, the commands to initiate tests and generate test results on the application installed in the plurality of devices, by the plurality of agent modules respectively; and receiving, by a receiver module of the server, the test results respectively from the plurality of agent modules, the test results including a number of errors found during the tests. Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). 2 Appeal 2016-007559 Application 13/944,668 The Rejection on Appeal Claims 1, 5—7, 9-11, 13—15, 17, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 2012/0204153 Al; Aug. 9, 2012) and Marullo et al. (US 6,185,701 Bl; Feb. 6, 2001). Final Act. 2—12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded of error. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer. We provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches “detecting, by a detector module of the server using the respective agent modules, one or more operating systems respectively used in each of the plurality of devices,” as recited in claim l.2 3App. Br. 7—8. Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Peterson teaches this limitation, because Peterson is directed to “game software” rather than “any operating system.” Id. at 8; Reply Br. 2. We disagree. 2 Appellants argue all claims as a group, and we choose claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal 2016-007559 Application 13/944,668 As the Examiner finds, Peterson teaches initiating a test on various “game platforms” in a “testing farm.” Ans. 16; Peterson || 73—74 (emphasis added). Prior to conducting the test, a “distribution module . . . determine^] through a query of the testing farm the makeup of the testing farm and which game platforms are available for use in this test.” Peterson 173 (emphasis added); Ans. 16—17. The “tester may be able to select one or more of the platforms ... to perform each of the testing instructions,” or “the distribution module may identify one of each type of game platform in the testing farm to simultaneously carry out the test (e.g., each type of platform is selected to carry out the same test function.” Peterson || 73—74 (emphasis added). Ans. 16—17. We discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that the foregoing passages (and the others cited by the Examiner, Ans. 16—18) teaches the disputed limitation. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ attempt to distinguish “operating systems” as recited in claim 1 from the gaming systems in Peterson. Specifically, we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “game platform” to teach or suggest a type of operating system. Ans. 18. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences . . . that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). Furthermore, we find Peterson’s description in paragraph 49 buttresses the Examiner’s finding: “A number of program modules such as game development tools, testing routines, and the like may be stored on hard disk 411, removable magnetic disk 415, optical disk 419 and/or ROM and/or RAM of system memory 405. 4 Appeal 2016-007559 Application 13/944,668 Such program modules may include an operating system providing graphics and sound APIs, one or more application programs, and a testing framework with software systems/program modules or subroutines, and test results and output of processing such test data.” (Emphasis added). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of representative independent claim 1, and grouped claims 5—7, 9-11, 13—15, 17, and 19, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peterson and Marullo. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 5—7, 9-11, 13—15, 17, and 19. 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation