Ex Parte Taylor et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 201612100322 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/100,322 04/09/2008 29973 7590 07/27/2016 CRGOLAW ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ. 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jacob Taylor 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. 1301-009U 5900 EXAMINER BOURZIK, BRAHIM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2016 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JACOB TAYLOR, JOHN ROBERTS, CLINTON ORAM, LILA ALEXEI TRETIKOV, JOSEPH L. PARSONS, and SADEK BAROUDI Appeal2014-006775 Application 12/100,322 Technology Center 2100 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge. REQUEST FOR REHEARING On July 18, 2016, Appellants 1 filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 ("Req. Reh'g") requesting reconsideration of our Decision on Appeal of May 17, 2016 ("Dec."). In our Decision, we affirmed the rejection of claims 1--4, 9--18, 22-27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reconsider our Decision in light of Appellants' Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the decision. 1 Appellants identify SugarCRM, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-006775 Application 12/100,322 ANALYSIS At issue is the following limitation in claim 1: "a unified application management console hosted by one of the nodes." App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. Appellants contend, the Board appears to not have addressed the fact that Examiner admits the workstations of Elbury to be equivalent to the claimed nodes, but that Examiner also admits that the "unified management console" of Elbury executes not in a "workstation", but in a server which Examiner has not mapped to the claimed nodes. Req. Reh' g 5. Appellants further assert, "the Board appears not to have addressed the core argument that the node in which the 'unified management console' executes in Elbury in [sic] just a server-not a workstation in which other instances of the single CRM application execute as required by Appellants' claim language" Id. We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in our prior Decision. We address Appellants arguments in tum. First, contrary to Appellants' argument that the "Examiner has not mapped [Elbury's server] to the claimed nodes," our Decision identified and endorsed the Examiner's mapping of Elbury's server as a node: We agree with the Examiner that El bury teaches a unified administration console (i.e., unified management console) installed as a server application 206 within server component 104 (i.e., executing within a node, the node executing in a server). Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 19--20 (citing Elbury, i-fi-121, 23 and Fig. 2). Dec. 4. Indeed, the cited portions of the Examiner's findings state, "The server 104 (including a set of application server) and host 108 is a node that fulfill client 102 request, this node also include a unified console application 2 Appeal2014-006775 Application 12/100,322 that administer the management of the system [0023] .... " Ans. 20 (emphasis added) (citing Elbury i-f 23). As stated in our Decision, claim 1 requires only that the "unified management console must execute in a node within a cluster of nodes running one or more application instances, where the node may include one or more servers." Dec. 3--4. Nothing in claim 1 precludes the Examiner's mapping of Elbury's server as a node. Although we agree with Appellants that the Examiner finds Elbury's workstations to be nodes, such findings do not preclude the Examiner from finding Elbury's server also to be a node, as claimed. We observe again, as we did in our Decision, the Specification discloses, "Each node 24 may further comprise a cluster of servers 26." Dec. 3 (quoting Spec. 3 :26-27). Second, we remain unpersuaded by Appellants' "core argument" because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Appellants contend claim 1 requires Elbury to teach or suggest that the node in which the console executes must be "a workstation in which other instances of the single CRM application execute." Req. Reh'g 5. Claim 1 does not so require. Rather, claim 1 recites "a plurality of nodes in a cluster of nodes." Each instance of the CRM application must be "hosted by a different one of the nodes" and the console must be "hosted by one of the nodes"; however, nothing in claim 1 requires that the node hosting the console must also host an instance of the CRM application. Accordingly, Appellants fail to show that we misapprehended or overlooked arguments and evidence in rendering our Decision. We, therefore, decline to change our prior Decision. 3 Appeal2014-006775 Application 12/100,322 CONCLUSION In view of the discussion above, we deny Appellants' Request for Rehearing. 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). REHEARING DENIED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation