Ex Parte Meirman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12757993 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121757,993 04/10/2010 Ilan Meirman
56436 7590 09/01/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82260599 3975
EXAMINER
MILLER, VIV AL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ILAN MEIRMAN, ROY NURIEL, YOSSI RACHELSON, and
DEKELTAL
Appeal2015-004827
Application 12/757,993
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
twice rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-19, all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to development and testing of
a software application, and more particularly to apparatus and methods that
Appeal2015-004827
Application 12/757,993
detect defects in a software application and report such defects to a defect
tracking system (see Spec. i-fi-f l, 8).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method executed by a computer, comprising:
opening, on a display of a computer, an inspection surface that
displays an inspection tool and a user interface of a software
application being tested for defects, wherein the inspection tool
includes a number of tools executable by a user to detect errors in the
user interface;
detecting, with the inspection tool, a defect in the user interface;
generating, in the inspection surface and with the inspection
tool, a graphical annotation of the defect, wherein the graphical
annotation describes the defect and includes information collected
with the number of tools; and
sending a report to a defect tracking system, wherein the defect
tracking system is different than the inspection tool, and wherein the
report includes a screenshot of the user interface, the inspection tool,
and the graphical annotation generated with the inspection tool.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1, 9, 14, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 2006/0279571 Al, Dec.
14, 2006), Hayutin (US 2009/0210749 Al, Aug. 20, 2009), and Ergan et al.
(US 2010/0229112 Al, Sept. 9, 2010). 1
1 The statement of rejection made by the Examiner (see Ans. 3; see also
Final Act. 5), and by Appellants (see App. Br. 9), includes claim 10, which
has been cancelled. Furthermore, the statement of rejection made by the
Examiner and Appellants omits claims 14 and 17, which are also rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mori, Hayutin, and
Ergan.
2
Appeal2015-004827
Application 12/757,993
R2. Claims 3, 4, 11, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mori, Hayutin, Ergan, and Winer (US
5,796,401, Aug. 18, 1998).
R3. Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mori, Hayutin, Ergan, and McLaughlin et al. (US
5,499,040, Mar. 12, 1996).
R4. Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mori, Hayutin, Ergan, and Halstead, Jr. (US
2002/0118193 Al, Aug. 29, 2002).
R5. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mori,
Hayutin, Ergan, and Ido et al. (US 2007 /0046700 Al, Mar. 1, 2007).
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under§ 103(a) over Mori, Hayutin, and Ergan
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Mori, Hayutin, and Ergan teach or suggest "generating, in the inspection
surface and with the inspection tool, a graphical annotation of the defect,
wherein the graphical annotation describes the defect and includes
information collected with the number of tools," as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend Ergan's general annotations "are added by a user,
and describe what the user was trying to accomplish when performing a
3
Appeal2015-004827
Application 12/757,993
sequence of interactions," which is "not analogous to annotations that are
generated by an inspection tool that is used to detect defects in a user
interface" (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4--5). However, claim 1 does not recite
the annotations are generated by an inspection tool. Rather, the claim recites
generating "with the inspection tool, a graphical annotation of the defect."
The Examiner finds the scope of this limitation, when read in light of
Paragraphs 36 and 40 of Appellants' Specification, encompasses a user
using a tool to generate a graphical annotation of the defect. Ans. 18-19.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants' contention is not commensurate
with the scope of claim 1.
Further, Appellants' argument against Ergan separately from Hayutin
does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Hayutin
teaches a test automation tool or inspection tool that detects anomalies and
pops up annotations commenting on details of the test which, "[ w ]hen
combined with Ergan, it provides more detail on how the annotation
describes the defect detected and includes information collected with the
number of tools" (Ans. 19; see also Ans. 18, 20).
For example, Hayutin discloses:
To test the GUI of the application 135, a user of the computing
system 101 may execute a test automation tool 102 that can drive
the application 135 automatically to detect anomalies during
execution .... The test automation tool 102 may run a number of
predetermined test scenarios on the application 135 to determine
4
Appeal2015-004827
Application 12/757,993
whether the application's GUI is functioning properly . ... To
keep a user of the test automation tool 102 informed of events
that are supposed to happen during the execution of the
application 135, one or more annotations 106 commenting on
details of the test will pop up on the display 107 . ...
(Hayutin if 23, emphasis added). Ergan discloses:
Compressor 236 may begin operating on the event records at any
suitable time. For example, in some embodiments the
compressor 23 6 begins retrieving event records from the event
log 235 after a stop event has occurred with an indication that a
problem report should be sent . ...
The compressor 23 6 records each filtered event record extracted
from the event log 235 and the user friendly translation of the
event record to the UI event file 237. The compressor may also
save screen shots, if they were captures, in the UI event file 237.
After the compressor 23 6 has processed all events to be included
in the UI event file 237, the UI event file may be reviewed by the
user . ... Additionally, the user may wish to provide additional
comments and annotations to the UI event file . ...
Once the user has had the option to review and possibly
annotated the UI event file 237, the file can serve as a completed
report. The controller 231 may provide instructions to the
network interface 220 to transmit the report over to the network
140 to a support entity ....
(Ergan iii! 71, 7 4, 81, 82, emphasis added).
In other words, Hayutin describes a testing tool that detects defects
and generates annotations commenting on the details of the defects and test
results as a pop-up on the display; and Ergan describes a recording tool
performing UI error reporting as event records to create event files that can
be additionally annotated by a user before being sent as a report to a
support entity.
5
Appeal2015-004827
Application 12/757,993
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
combination of Hayutin and Ergan (and Mori) does not teach generating a
graphical annotation of a detected defect with an inspection tool, wherein the
graphical annotation describes the defect and includes information collected
with a number of tools executable by a user to detect errors in the user
interface. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Hayutin's testing
tool detecting defects and generating pop-up annotations describing those
defects teaches "generating, in the inspection surface and with the inspection
tool, a graphical annotation of the defect, wherein the graphical annotation
describes the defect," as recited in claim 1; and Ergan's UI event file,
produced by a recording tool to provide user-annotatable error reporting for
a UI, teaches "the graphical annotation describes the defect and includes
information collected with the number of tools," as required by claim 1.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Mori, Hayutin, and Ergan teach or suggest "sending a report to a defect
tracking system, wherein the defect tracking system is different than the
inspection tool, and wherein the report includes a screenshot of the user
interface, the inspection tool, and the graphical annotation generated with
the inspection tool," as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend Ergan's screenshots are merely "screenshots of an
interaction" and are "not analogous to a screenshot of: a user interface, an
inspection tool, and graphical annotations generated with the inspection
tool" (App. Br. 12; see also App. Br. 13).
We agree with the Examiner's finding Ergan "shows a screenshot that
is annotated with comments from the user," and that Ergan's screenshot
6
Appeal2015-004827
Application 12/757,993
teaches "a screenshot of the user interface, the inspection tool, and the
graphical annotation generated" (Ans. 21-22).
For example, Ergan discloses:
The compressor 236 records each filtered event record extracted
from the event log 235 and the user friendly translation of the
event record to the UI event file 237. The compressor may also
save screen shots, if they were captures, in the UI event file 237.
Additionally, the user may wish to provide additional comments
and annotations to the UI event file . ...
Once the user has had the option to review and possibly
annotated the UI event file 237, the file can serve as a completed
report. The controller 231 may provide instructions to the
network interface 220 to transmit the report over to the network
140 to a support entity . ...
(Ergan i-fi-1 7 4, 81, 82, emphasis added). In other words, Ergan describes a
complete report that comprises a UI event file comprising screenshots with
event records and user annotations.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
combination of Mori, Hayutin, and Ergan does not teach sending a report
that includes a screenshot of the user interface, the inspection tool, and the
graphical annotation. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
Ergan's transmission of a completed report including screenshots, error
records, and annotations teaches or suggests "sending a report to a defect
tracking system, wherein the defect tracking system is different than the
inspection tool, and wherein the report includes a screenshot of the user
interface, the inspection tool, and the graphical annotation generated with
the inspection tool," as required by claim 1.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
7
Appeal2015-004827
Application 12/757,993
claim 1, as well as the rejection of commensurate independent claims 9 and
15, not separately argued (App. Br. 10-11, 13), as well as dependent claims
14 and 17, not separately argued (App. Br. 14), is sustained.
Rejection under§ 103(a) over Mori, Hayutin, Ergan, and Winer
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claims 3, 4, 11, 16, 18, and 19. Therefore, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection R2 of claims 3, 4, 11, 16, 18, and 19 is sustained for
similar reasons as noted supra.
Rejection under§ 103(a) over Mori, Hayutin, Ergan, and McLaughlin
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claims 5 and 13. Therefore, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
R3 of claims 5 and 13 is sustained for similar reasons as noted supra.
Rejection under§ 103(a) over Mori, Hayutin, Ergan, and Halstead
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claims 6 and 12. Therefore, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
R4 of claims 6 and 12 is sustained for similar reasons as noted supra.
Rejection under§ 103(a) over Mori, Hayutin, Ergan, andldo
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability
for claim 7. Therefore, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection R5 of
claim 7 is sustained for similar reasons as noted supra.
8
Appeal2015-004827
Application 12/757,993
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections Rl-R5.
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).
AFFIRMED
9