ENTIT SOFTWARE LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2021

2020002942 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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.
15/546,072 07/25/2017 Avigad Mizrahi 90445992 9888
146568 7590 08/02/2021
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
VILLENA, MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2021 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):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte AVIGAD MIZRAHI, OMER FRIEMAN, and
SIMON RABINOWITZ
_____________

Appeal 2020-002942
Application 15/546,072
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies MICRO FOCUS LLC as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002942
Application 15/546,072

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to automated template creation for virtual
desktops. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a machine-translation engine, to determine a machine-translation
for each of a plurality of strings, the strings for display upon
execution of a subject application;
a first display engine, to cause a first display of a test step to be
performed by a test application during execution of the subject
application;
a second display engine, to cause, concurrent with the first
display, a second display of a state for the subject application that
includes the plurality of strings;
a user-translation engine, to obtain a user-translation for each of
the strings, the user translations provided via a GUI included
within the second display; and
a property file engine, to amend a translation property file
associated with the subject application to include the user-
translations.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Yang US 6,530,039 B1 Mar. 4, 2003
Thomas US 9,372,672 B1 June 21, 2016
REJECTIONS
Claims 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 4–5.
Appeal 2020-002942
Application 15/546,072

3

Claims 1–3 and 6–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
unpatentable over Thomas. Final Act. 5–10.
Claims 4, 5, and 12–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Thomas and Yang. Final Act. 10–22.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 3–22) in light
of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 7–12) that the Examiner has erred, as
well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal
Brief (Ans. 3–7) and Appellant’s reply in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–6).
With regard to the Examiner’s § 101 rejection, we agree with
Appellant’s contentions (Appeal Br. 7) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 12–14 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. We
agree with Appellant that, considering the Specification as a whole, “the
term ‘memory resource’ does not refer to transitory media such as a ‘carrier
wave’ when interpreted in view of the explicit definition” provided in
paragraph 57 of the Specification. Appeal Br. 7.
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims
12–14.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 and 6–11 as
anticipated by Thomas, the Examiner has not explained in sufficient detail
where Thomas discloses a “test application,” as required by the claims. We
agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that “constant
testing” between a programmer and a translator discloses a test application
(Ans. 5). See Reply Br. 3–4; Appeal Br. 8–10.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 102(a)(2) rejection of
claims 1–3 and 6–11.
Appeal 2020-002942
Application 15/546,072

4

With regard to the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 4, 5, and 12–
20, Appellant persuades us that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Thomas and Yang teaches or suggests “a first display of a
listing of testing actions to be performed by a test application during
execution of the subject application.” See Appeal Br. 10–12. For the reasons
discussed above with regard to anticipation by Thomas, the Examiner has
not explained in sufficient detail where Thomas teaches or suggests a “test
application,” as required by the claims. Moreover, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner erred in finding that “instructions 161” of Thomas teach
or suggest “testing actions,” as recited in the claims. See Ans. 13–14. The
Examiner did not address in the Answer, and thus has not sufficiently
explained, how it is “implied” that “instructions 161” are “testing actions to
be performed by a test application during execution of the subject
application,” as recited in the claims. See id.
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 4, 5, and 12–20 for obviousness.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–14 101 Eligibility 12–14
1–3, 6–11 102(a)(2) Thomas 1–3, 6–11
4, 5, 12–20 103 Thomas, Yang 4, 5, 12–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED