Mueller, Douglas

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2019

13006127 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2019)

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.
13/006,127 01/13/2011 Douglas Mueller 0081-221001/10-052-US 3870
93236 7590 09/11/2019
Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP
c/o CPA Global
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SCHEUNEMANN, RICHARD N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2019 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@brakehughes.com
uspto@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

1

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DOUGLAS MUELLER
____________________

Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 10, 11, 14–16, 20–24, and 26–31,
which constitute all the claims pending in this Application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 17–19, and 25 were
cancelled.
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as BMC
Software, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to the Specification’s Background section, “programmable
control devices located at a personal residence often require technical
support. Implementations of ‘trouble ticket’ or customer support capabilities
can be tailored for a particular vendor or environment.” Spec. ¶ 2. “[P]rior
art techniques[, however,] are typically limited to a single environment or
potentially a small number of support environments because support
engineers are confined by the capabilities of their support infrastructure.”
Id. ¶ 4.
Appellant’s invention relates to “a method and system for providing a
centralized interface to an integrated work queue of tasks (e.g., action items)
where each task could have originated on a different and potentially remote
system.” Id. ¶ 1. Notably, Appellant’s invention relates to “a Hub
(centralized system) and Spoke (remote system) integration of service tasks
wherein each service task may further be automatically enabled for
processing (i.e., performance of the task) in the context and environment of
the originating Spoke system.” Id.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A method of operating a central computer system to
provide support for one or more infrastructure technology (IT)
environments, the method comprising:
integrating, at a central computing system, a plurality of sub-
tickets from a plurality of disparate remote systems, including:
receiving, at the central computing system, a first sub-
ticket from a first remote system, the first sub-ticket comprising
a portion, less than all, of attributes associated with a first trouble
ticket at the first remote system,
receiving, at the central computing system, a second sub-
ticket from a second remote system, wherein the second remote
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

3

system is different from the first remote system, the second sub-
ticket comprising a portion, less than all, of attributes associated
with a second trouble ticket at the second remote system,
integrating, by the central computer system, information
from the first sub-ticket and the second sub-ticket to form a
consolidated information set in a single queue;
providing the consolidated information set to a plurality of users
of the central computer system for selection of at least one of the first
and second sub-tickets by one of the plurality of users of the central
computer;
receiving an indication of a selection of the first sub-ticket or the
second sub-ticket by one of the plurality of users;
in response to receiving the indication of the selection of the first
sub-ticket from one of the plurality of users on the central computing
system, opening a window from the first remote system on a display of
the central computing system and activating a session between the
central computing system and the first remote system, wherein the
window is in a context of the first remote system, and rendering all
details of the first trouble ticket in the window to enable the user to
perform work directly on the first remote system from the central
computing system using the window and the activated session between
the central computing system and the first remote system as requested
in the first trouble ticket; and
in response to receiving the indication of the selection of the
second sub-ticket from one of the plurality of users on the central
computing system, opening a window from the second remote system
on the display of the central computing system and activating a session
between the central computing system and the second remote system,
wherein the window is in a context of the second remote system, and
rendering all details of the second trouble ticket in the window to enable
the user to perform work directly on the second remote system from the
central computing system using the window and the activated session
between the central computing system and the second remote system as
requested in the second trouble ticket.
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

4

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–7, 10, 11, 14–16, 20–24, and 26–31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. Final
Act. 5–7.
Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10, 14–16, 20–24, 26, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Habibi (US 2006/0178898
A1; Aug. 10, 2006) and Lutz (US 2008/0195614 A1; Aug. 14, 2008). Final
Act. 7–27.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Habibi, Lutz, and Lukasik (US 2008/0270910 A1; Oct.
30, 2008). Final Act. 27–28.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Habibi, Lutz, and Suishu (US 7,356,640 B2; Apr. 8,
2008). Final Act. 29.
Claims 28–31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Habibi, Lutz, and Ingman (US 2004/0111634 A1; June
10, 2004). Final Act. 29–33.
ANALYSIS
THE PATENT INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER REJECTION
The Supreme Court’s two-step framework (the “Alice/Mayo test”)
guides our analysis of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Alice
Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014); see also Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). In
addition, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently
published revised guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility under
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

5

35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically with respect to applying the Alice /Mayo test.
USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). If a claim falls within one of the
statutory categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter), we determine whether the claim is
directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature,
a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part
of our inquiry, we “look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior
art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded
subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d
1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Guidance directs us to address this inquiry
using the following two prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim recite a
judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea), and (ii) if so, is the judicial
exception integrated into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Although the independent claims each broadly fall within the statutory
categories of patentability, the Examiner concludes the claims are directed to
“managing trouble tickets.” Final Act. 5. According to the Examiner, claim
1 is similar to a representative claim, which recited receiving, screening, and
distributing messages, that the Federal Circuit found ineligible in Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Id. at 5–
6.
Appellant asserts the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. See
Appeal Br. 13–20; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant argues, among other things, the
Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of patent ineligibility by
describing the claims at a high level of abstraction as being directed to
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

6

managing trouble tickets. Appeal Br. 14–16 (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We disagree.
The Examiner has a duty to give notice of a rejection with sufficient
particularity to give Appellant a fair opportunity to respond to the rejection.
See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). That section “is violated when a rejection is so
uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to
counter the grounds for rejection.” Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, we find the Examiner’s rejection satisfies the initial
burden of production by identifying that the claims include limitations
similar to the identified abstract idea of “managing trouble tickets,” and that
the remainder of the claims do not add significantly more to the abstract idea
because the generically-recited computer elements are well-understood,
routine, and conventional. Final Act. 5–7. Accordingly, the Examiner
(1) set forth the statutory basis for the rejection, namely 35 U.S.C. § 101; (2)
concluded that the claims are directed to a judicial exception to § 101,
namely an abstract idea; and (3) explained the rejection in sufficient detail to
permit Appellant to respond meaningfully. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record, then, the Examiner established a
prima facie case of ineligibility.
Here, although the claims recite and generally relate to managing
trouble tickets, we conclude the claims are directed to managing trouble
tickets by consolidating tickets from multiple remote systems and enabling
support personnel to work in a remote system by opening a window from
and in the context of the remote system and activating a session with the
remote system. As described in the Specification, it was known that upon a
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

7

typical troubleshooting support employee issuing a “trouble ticket” to an end
user, the employee was confined to a particular set of supported capabilities
and environments. Spec. ¶ 2. And, although troubleshooting support has
been increasingly “outsourced” to service providers across different
countries, the complete replication of data by a service provider may not be
a viable solution due to the substantially different rules about transmission
and storage of data at various “outsourcing” locations. Id. ¶ 3.
Appellant’s invention provides a centralized interface to an integrated
work queue of tasks where each task originates on a different remote system.
Id. ¶¶ 1, 9. A problem ticket is generated in the remote (Spoke) system
when a problem is detected on a computer device. Id. ¶¶ 24, 26. If the
system determines not to service the problem at the remote system, a portion
of the problem ticket information is sent to a Hub and integrated with other
existing support tickets from the same and other remote systems for
automatic or manual assignments to Hub-users. Id. ¶ 26. Once a Hub-user
selects the highest priority ticket from her queue, the Hub system collects the
problem ticket information (and possibly other information) to activate a
session with the remote system or a computer on the Spoke system in that
remote system’s context. Id. ¶ 27. Using a session in the remote system’s
context, the Hub-user may then work on resolving the problem ticket
associated with the remote system by using the remote system’s
environment without the Hub system’s environment interfering with the
Hub-user’s ability to work the ticket. Id. Thus, Appellant’s claimed systems
and methods do not reflect simply managing trouble tickets. Accordingly,
we conclude Appellant’s claims are not directed to merely the abstract idea
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

8

of any type of trouble ticket management; rather, the claims are directed to a
specific application of managing trouble tickets that consolidates sub-tickets
from multiple remote systems and enables support personnel to work in a
remote system by opening a window from, and in the context of, the remote
system and activating a session with the remote system.
Claim 1 is reproduced below, with the claim limitations that recite
elements of the abstract idea of managing trouble tickets emphasized in
italics:
1. A method of operating a central computer system to
provide support for one or more infrastructure technology (IT)
environments, the method comprising:
integrating, at a central computing system, a plurality of sub-
tickets from a plurality of disparate remote systems, including:
receiving, at the central computing system, a first sub-
ticket from a first remote system, the first sub-ticket comprising
a portion, less than all, of attributes associated with a first
trouble ticket at the first remote system,
receiving, at the central computing system, a second sub-
ticket from a second remote system, wherein the second remote
system is different from the first remote system, the second sub-
ticket comprising a portion, less than all, of attributes
associated with a second trouble ticket at the second remote
system,
integrating, by the central computer system, information
from the first sub-ticket and the second sub-ticket to form a
consolidated information set in a single queue;
providing the consolidated information set to a plurality of
users of the central computer system for selection of at least one of
the first and second sub-tickets by one of the plurality of users of the
central computer;
receiving an indication of a selection of the first sub-ticket or
the second sub-ticket by one of the plurality of users;
in response to receiving the indication of the selection of the
first sub-ticket from one of the plurality of users on the central
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

9

computing system, opening a window from the first remote system on
a display of the central computing system and activating a session
between the central computing system and the first remote system,
wherein the window is in a context of the first remote system, and
rendering all details of the first trouble ticket in the window to enable
the user to perform work directly on the first remote system from the
central computing system using the window and the activated session
between the central computing system and the first remote system as
requested in the first trouble ticket; and
in response to receiving the indication of the selection of the
second sub-ticket from one of the plurality of users on the central
computing system, opening a window from the second remote system
on the display of the central computing system and activating a
session between the central computing system and the second remote
system, wherein the window is in a context of the second remote
system, and rendering all details of the second trouble ticket in the
window to enable the user to perform work directly on the second
remote system from the central computing system using the window
and the activated session between the central computing system and
the second remote system as requested in the second trouble ticket.

More particularly, managing trouble tickets comprises (i) receiving a
first and second sub-ticket, each comprising a portion of attributes associated
with, respectively, a first and second trouble ticket (i.e., the claimed
receiving sub-ticket steps); (ii) integrating the first and second sub-tickets to
form a consolidated information set (i.e., the claimed integrating step);2
(iii) providing the consolidated information set for selection of at least one
of the first and second sub-tickets (i.e., the claimed providing step); and

2 Collectively, the two receiving sub-ticket steps and the integrating step
make up the sub-steps required by the recited “integrating . . . a plurality of
sub-tickets” step, which must include these three steps and may include
other steps not recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

10

(iv) receiving an indication of a selection of the first or second sub-ticket
(i.e., the claimed receiving indication step).
The claimed receiving sub-ticket, integrating, providing, and receiving
indication steps in claim 1 constitute mental processes because, but for the
generic computing elements, the steps could be performed mentally. Our
Guidance identifies mental processes as another category of abstract ideas.
84 Fed. Reg. at 52. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind. See id.; see also Intellectual
Ventures, 838 F.3d at 1318 (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-
implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose
them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”);
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (explaining that “analyzing information by steps people go through in
their minds” is a mental process within the abstract idea category and
concluding claims directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” were abstract);
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding claims that focused on collecting, displaying
and manipulating data were directed to an abstract idea). Because the claim
recites a judicial exception, our Guidance directs us to address whether any
recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

11

“Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. Notably, “[t]his prong adds a more detailed eligibility analysis to step
one of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2A) than was required under prior
guidance.” Id. According to this prong, because the claim recites a judicial
exception, we next determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the
judicial exception into a practical application. Id. To determine whether the
claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application, we identify whether there are “any additional elements recited
in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to
determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added); see also MANUAL OF
PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Appellant argues the claimed invention enables a user to perform
work directly on a remote system from a central computing system, which
(1) improves computer technology (Appeal Br. 15); (2) overcomes technical
problems encountered due to a central computing system and remote
systems having different technologies or applications (id. at 19 (quoting
Spec. ¶ 19)); (3) results in an improvement in computer-related function like
the claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d
1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Appeal Br. 20); and (4) provides a technical
solution to a technical problem like the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Appeal Br. 22).
Here, we find the additional limitations integrate the abstract concept
of managing trouble tickets into a practical application. In particular, we
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

12

find the claim does not merely manage trouble tickets, but rather, in
response to the received indication that a user selects a first sub-ticket, the
claim recites “opening a window from the first remote system on a display
of the central computing system and activating a session between the central
computing system and the first remote system, wherein the window is in a
context of the first remote system, and rendering all details of the first
trouble ticket in the window to enable the user to perform work directly on
the first remote system from the central computing system using the window
and the activated session between the central computing system and the first
remote system as requested in the first trouble ticket.” Appeal Br. 26
(Claims App’x).
As described in the Specification, the use of the claimed window from
the first remote system on a display of the central computing system
provides an improvement over the existing trouble ticket management
systems and methods. For example, the Specification discloses:
[b]y using a session in the context of the Spoke system’s region[,]
the Hub-user can more effectively address issues particular to the
trouble ticket. In this manner, the environment of the Hub-user
on Central Hub System 110 is not as apt to interfere with the
Hub-user’s ability to work the ticket. For example, the Central
Hub System 110 does not have to have any particular versions of
software which may vary (and possibly conflict) from region to
region.

Spec. ¶ 27; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“An indication that the claimed
invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the
specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

13

unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies
technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.”).
Thus, because claim 1 as a whole integrates the recited abstract idea
into a practical application of that abstract idea, claim 1 is not directed to the
abstract idea. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 53 (“A claim is not ‘directed to’ a judicial
exception . . . if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception
into a practical application of that exception.”).
“Because we find the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, we
need not proceed to step two.” Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Only when a claim recites a
judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application, is the claim ‘directed to’ a judicial exception, thereby triggering
the need for further analysis pursuant to the second step of the Alice/Mayo
test (USPTO Step 2B).”).
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Appellant’s claims are
patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 53 (“A claim . . .
is patent eligible . . . if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial
exception into a practical application of that exception.”). Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 10, 11, 14–16, 20–24,
and 26–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
The Examiner finds Habibi discloses many recited elements of
independent claim 1 including, among other things, integrating, at a central
computing system, a first sub-ticket and a second sub-ticket from disparate
remote systems to form a consolidated information set in a single queue.
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

14

Final Act. 7–9 (citing Habibi ¶¶ 44–45, 193; claim 10). The Examiner finds
Habibi discloses “receiving an indication of a selection of the first sub-ticket
or the second sub-ticket by” a user, and
in response to receiving the indication of the selection of
the first sub-ticket from one of the plurality of users on the central
computing system, opening a window from the first remote
system on a display of the central computing system and
activating a session between the central computing system and
the first remote system, wherein the window is in a context of the
first remote system, and rendering all details of the first trouble
ticket in the window to enable the user to perform work directly
on the first remote system from the central computing system
using the window and the activated session between the central
computing system and the first remote system as requested in the
first trouble ticket; and
in response to receiving the indication of the selection of
the second sub-ticket from one of the plurality of users on the
central computing system, opening a window from the second
remote system on the display of the central computing system
and activating a session between the central computing system
and the second remote system, wherein the window is in a
context of the second remote system, and rendering all details of
the second trouble ticket in the window to enable the user to
perform work directly on the second remote system from the
central computing system using the window and the activated
session between the central computing system and the second
remote system as requested in the second trouble ticket,

(the opening a window steps), as recited in claim 1. Id. at 9–10 (citing
Habibi ¶¶ 92, 112–113, 166, 351, claim 10). Although the Examiner
acknowledges that each of Habibi’s sub-tickets do not comprise a sub-
portion (i.e., less than all) of the attributes associated with a trouble ticket at
a remote system, the Examiner cites Lutz for teaching this feature in
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

15

concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Id. at 8 (citing Lutz ¶
22).
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant reproduces limitations from claim 1
and the portions of Habibi cited by the Examiner, and asserts the cited
sections of Habibi do not teach the recited language. See Appeal Br. 23–24.
Allegations that the cited portions of the reference fail to disclose or teach
the recited limitations without attempting to indicate how the recited claim
language distinguishes over Habibi’s cited sections do not constitute
substantive arguments in response to the Examiner’s findings for separate
consideration by the Board. See Ex parte Belinne, Appeal 2009-004693,
2009 WL 2477843 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). Notably, the
appellants in Belinne merely (1) restated elements from the claim, and (2)
argued that they were missing from the cited reference, but failed to explain
why the Examiner’s fact finding was erroneous. Id. at *4; accord In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ans. 6 (citing Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)).
Appellant, however, presents more substantive arguments in the Reply
Brief. Reply Br. 7–9. Notably, Appellant argues Habibi’s browser interface
and pop-up window described in the cited portions of Habibi teaches
rendering all details of a trouble ticket in a window to enable a user to
perform work directly on a remote system from a central computing system
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

16

using the window and an activated session. Id. at 9. Appellant explains that
Habibi fails to mention the capability of rendering all ticket details in a
window to enable a Hub-user to perform work directly on the remote system
using the claimed window an activated session. Id.
Normally, any argument raised in the Reply Brief not raised in the
Appeal Brief is untimely and not considered by the Board. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2). But under the same rule, arguments responsive to an
argument raised in the Examiner’s Answer are not untimely. See id. That is
the case here. Appellant’s substantive arguments in the Reply Brief
mentioned above are responsive to the Examiner’s findings in the Answer–
i.e., that paragraphs 92, 112, 113, 166, and 351 of Habibi “disclose a
universal browser interface to manage data with Windows ®
implementations in all embodiments.” Ans. 6.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s reliance on Habibi to
teach or suggest the opening a window steps is problematic. At the outset,
we note the Examiner relies solely on Habibi’s claim 10 in the Final Action
to teach or suggest receiving an indication of a selection of a first sub-ticket
or a second sub-ticket by one of a plurality of users, as recited in claim 1.
See Final Act. 9. Habibi’s claim 10 discloses “send[ing] each collected help
request to an appropriate one of the trouble ticketing systems for resolution
and correlate any response received with the sent help request.”
Even if Habibi suggests that the received response from an
appropriate one of the trouble ticketing systems is an indication of a
selection of a sub-ticket from one of a plurality of users on a central
computing system, we fail to see how Habibi teaches or suggests the
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

17

window opening steps. Notably, the Examiner explains that all
embodiments of Habibi teach a universal browser interface to manage data.
Ans. 6. But, even accepting that finding, we fail to see—nor has the
Examiner shown—how Habibi teaches or suggests the entirety of the
limitation. Specifically, claim 1 recites: in response to the received
response, (1) opening a window from a first remote system on a display of a
central computing system, (2) activating a session between the central
computing system and the first remote system, wherein the window is in a
context of the first remote system, and (3) rendering all details of a first
trouble ticket in a window to enable a user to perform work directly on the
first remote system from the central computing system using the window
and the activated session between the central computing system and the first
remote system as requested in the first trouble ticket. Accord Reply Br. 9.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 22, 26, and 27, which recite
commensurate limitations, and (3) dependent claims 2–7, 10, 11, 14–16, 20,
21, 23, 24, and 28–31 for similar reasons. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (noting “[d]ependent claims are nonobvious under
section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.”).
Appeal 2018-007911
Application 13/006,127

18

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 10, 11, 14–16,
20–24, 26–31
§ 101 1–7, 10, 11, 14–16,
20–24, and 26–31
1–3, 6, 7, 10, 14–16,
20–24, 26, 27
§ 103 Habibi,
Lutz
1–3, 6, 7, 10, 14–16,
20–24, 26, 27
4, 5 § 103 Habibi,
Lutz, Lukasik
4, 5
11 § 103 Habibi,
Lutz, Suishu
11
28–31 § 103 Habibi,
Lutz, Ingman
28–31
Overall Outcome 1–7, 10, 11, 14–16,
20–24, and 26–31

REVERSED