Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2016

12100322 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

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