Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2017

13944668 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2017)

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