Ex Parte Nir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13457195 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/457, 195 04/26/2012 DorNir
56436 7590 08/31/2016
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.
82963813 5982
EXAMINER
DO,CHATC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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 DOR NIR and DROR SAARONI 1
Appeal2015-001645
Application 13/457, 195
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed June 2, 2014 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed July 16, 2014 ("App. Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed September 11, 2014 ("Ans."); the Appellants'
Reply Brief filed November 11, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and the Specification
filed April 26, 2012 ("Spec.").
Appeal2015-001645
Application 13/457,195
THE CLAHvIED INVENTION
According to the Specification, the present invention "relate[ s]
generally to the testing of applications within a computing environment"
and, more specifically, "relate[ s] to the automatic synchronization of test
steps for an application and the actual application flow." Spec. i-f 7.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method, independent claim 10 is
directed to a system, and independent claim 16 is directed to a computer-
readable medium. App. Br. 13-15 (Claims Appendix). Claim 1 recites:
1. A method, comprising:
automatically executing a script for testing an
application;
collecting test step information corresponding to test
steps performed in accordance with the script; and
collecting profiling information during execution of the
script;
wherein the test step information and the profiling
information comprise data that are used to automatically
synchronize the test step information and the profiling
information.
App. Br. 13 (disputed limitations emphasized).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b)
as being anticipated by Vaitheeswaran et al. (US 2009/0199160 Al,
published Aug. 6, 2009) ("Vaitheeswaran"). Final Act. 3.
Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Vaitheeswaran and Kalamegham et al. (US 2011/0072418
Al, published Mar. 24, 2011) ("Kalamegham"). Final Act. 11.
2
Appeal2015-001645
Application 13/457,195
GROUPil~G OF CLAilvIS
Appellants rely on the arguments presented as to independent claims
1, 10, and 16 for all the pending claims. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 1, 4.
The three independent claims are subject to the same rejection. Final Act. 3.
Accordingly, we decide this appeal as to all claims based on our
consideration of representative claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claim 1 in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in the Appeal Brief. We are not persuaded that
Appellants identify reversible error. We agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings, reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the Final
Office Action (Final Act. 3-16) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-9). We
highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue Vaitheeswaran fails to disclose, "collecting test step
information corresponding to test steps performed in accordance with the
script [for testing an application]," and "automatically synchroniz[ing] the
test step information and the profiling information" as recited in independent
claim 1. App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 1-3. Independent claims 10 and 16
contain analogous limitations. App. Br. 14--15 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner relies on paragraph 6 of V aitheeswaran as disclosing
"collecting test step information corresponding to test steps performed in
accordance with the script [for testing an application]." Ans. 3--4.
Paragraph 6 of Vaitheeswaran discloses a software developer creating test
plans comprising steps and logic and describing the test plan with an
execution script comprising code in a scripting language. Paragraph 84 of
3
Appeal2015-001645
Application 13/457,195
Vaitheeswaran provides an example of an execution script compnsmg code
for a simple test plan. This exemplary script includes code relating to the
number of times a command is performed ("$number_of_times" and "# Run
our command multiple times for (0 .. $number_of_times )") and for
recording timestamps indicating when test steps are executed ("# Say when
the actual testing started send_feedback('START_EXECUTION')" and"#
Say when the actual testing ended send_feedback('END_EXECUTION')."
Vaitheeswaran i-f 84. This code relates to "test step information" as
described in paragraph 21 of the Specification which states:
For example, the test step information may include data
relating to the number of iterations that were performed for
each test step. The log file may also include data used for the
synchronization of the test step information with the profiling
information. For example, each test step that was executed may
be associated with a corresponding timestamp that indicates the
time at which the test step was executed.
Spec. i-f 21. Vaitheeswaran discloses "collecting test step information" as
described in the Specification and we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in finding Vaitheeswaran discloses this disputed limitation.
Appellants argue Vaitheeswaran discloses test steps "to be performed"
and the claims require "collecting test script information corresponding to
test steps that have been performed." App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. However,
Vaitheeswaran discloses executing and completing the test plan and
collecting data and generating test results. See, e.g., Fig. 2.
With regard to "automatically synchroniz[ing] the test step
information and the profiling information," the Examiner relies on
paragraphs 8 and 9 ofVaitheeswaran. Ans. 6-7. The cited paragraphs state:
4
Appeal2015-001645
Application 13/457,195
During a test job, a software developer may collect
performance-related statistics and events from the various
computer systems involved in the test job. Performance-
related statistics may include a variety of metrics indicating
how certain aspects of a system behave during the test job.
Perfonnance-related events may include, for example, software
events indicated by debug statements, error statements, or other
code-triggered comments. Performance-related statistics and
events may be collected by means of logs generated by log-
generating components of the system, including profiler
utilities, resource monitors, operating systems, the tested
software, or any other software package on a tested system.
Furthermore, the test plan may itself include steps for
outputting performance information to logs. Collecting such
statistics manually can be a tedious task, as a developer must
search for the relevant logs on each tested system and identify
the portions of the logs that pertain to the time during which the
test job was being performed on that tested system.
Therefore, software developers typically include steps in
their test plans for automating statistic collection.
Vaitheeswaran i-fi-1 8, 9. In addition to this passage specifically disclosing
"automating statistic collection," Appellants' Specification provides, "the
term 'automatic' refers to any type of automated machine process." Spec. i1
7. Appellants' Specification provides, "the term 'profiling information'
refers to any type of information relating to an application that may assist in
the debugging of the application." Spec. i-f 10. The above-quoted passage
in Vaitheeswaran discloses collecting "performance-related events"
including "debug statements ... by means of logs generated by ... profiler
utilities." Vaitheeswaran i18. In addition to these cited paragraphs, other
passages in Vaitheeswaran disclose "automatically synchroniz[ing] the test
step information and the profiling information" using time-stamp
information and displaying the synchronized information in data reports and
5
Appeal2015-001645
Application 13/457,195
graphs. Vaitheeswaran i1i1 171, 178, 188, 209. We are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding V aitheeswaran discloses this disputed limitation.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that V aitheeswaran
anticipates claim 1 and sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-20 for
which separate arguments were not presented.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
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
6