Ex Parte Yin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12510359 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/510,359 07/28/2009 Jianwen Yin
33438 7590 06/17/2016
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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.
DC-16909 1778
EXAMINER
PARK, GRACE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIANWEN YIN and JAMES WATT
Appeal2015-000229 1
Application 12/510,359
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and KARA L.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 4---6, 9-11, 14--18. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8,
12, and 13 have been canceled. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for building
a catalog listing packages of software updates, which are used by update
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Dell Products L.P. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000229
Application 12/1510359
tools to deploy updates to information handling customers. The catalog
includes information for each update including filename, location, urgency,
applicable platform, and release date. Spec. if 3.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. An information handling system implemented method for
building a catalog comprising:
collecting a plurality of data samples for inclusion within the
catalog via an information handling system, the collecting a
plurality of data samples comprising executing a get data
operation via a bundle queries object;
merging the data samples via the information handling system,
the merging comprising performing a merge operation via a
dataset utilities object;
filtering the data samples to provide a data set based upon a set
of rules via the information handling system; and, representing
the data set in a predefined catalog format via the information
handling system; and wherein the catalog comprises
information about update packages comprising file names,
locations, urgency, applicable platforms, and release dates;
the catalog includes information for deploying the update
packages to information handling systems; and, the collecting
further comprises retrieving names for update package files
from an internal software life cycle storage device and release
identifiers attached to each update package file.
Rejections on Appeal and Prior Art Relied Upon
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1, 4---6, 9-11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Appiah et al. (US
2
Appeal2015-000229
Application 12/1510359
2009/0007091 Al, published Jan. 1, 2009), Foster (US 6,986,134 Bl, issued
Jan. 10, 2006), and Wickham et al. (US 2004/0187103 Al, Sept. 23, 2004).
Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Appiah, Foster, Wickham, and
Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (AAP A).
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4--5. 2
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Appiah, Foster, and Wickham teaches or
suggests representing a dataset in a predefined catalog format including
filenames, locations, urgency, applicable platforms, and release dates for
each update package, as recited in independent claim 1?
Appellants argue Foster's disclosure of a package index taken in
combination with Wickham's disclosure of an update catalog does not cure
the admitted deficiencies of Appiah, and thereby does not teach or suggest
the disputed limitations emphasized above. Br. 4--5. This argument is not
persuasive.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 2, 2014), and the Answer (mailed July
3, 2014) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision
only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other
arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal2015-000229
Application 12/1510359
At the outset, we note Appellants' argument have not particularly
addressed the specific findings made by the Examiner in the rejection of
claim 1. In particular, Appellants have not disputed or rebutted the
Examiner's finding that Appiah's disclosure of retrieving software update
packages teaches retrieving the data set recited in claim 1. Ans. 3 (citing
Appiah i-fi-121, 23, 26, 33). Further, Appellants have not similarly rebutted
the Examiner's finding that Foster's disclosure of a package index
(including information such as filename, location, type) for deploying a
software update package teaches representing the dataset in a catalog format.
Ans. 3--4 (citing Foster 5:8-58). Likewise, Appellants have not disputed the
Examiner's finding that Wickham discloses an update catalog containing
dataset information for each software update including the release date for
each software. Id. (citing Wickham i1 3 7). Instead, Appellants summarily
dismiss the combination of the cited disclosures as failing to teach the
disputed limitations. We do not agree with Appellants. We echo the
Examiner's finding that the combination of the cited teachings would have
predictably resulted in an update catalog that represents software update
packages retrieved from a publishing server, wherein the packages are
indexed in the catalog along with their respective filenames, types, locations,
release date, platforms, and urgency. Ans. 4, Final Act. 5-8.
Appellants are reminded that gratuitous allegations without
presentation of evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings of fact are
unpersuasive of error. Appellants are also reminded that merely reciting the
claim limitations and findings relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection is
4
Appeal2015-000229
Application 12/1510359
not a responsive argument. Such a response to the Examiner's findings is
insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error, as mere attorney arguments
and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex
parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8 (BP AI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
("[W]e hold that the 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."); cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.")
Because we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Appiah,
Foster, and Wickham teaches the disputed limitations, Appellants have not
shown the Examiner erred in concluding the proffered combination renders
claim 1 unpatentable.
Regarding the rejections of claims 4---6, 9-11, 14--18, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 4---6, 9-11, 14--18 fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
5
Appeal2015-000229
Application 12/1510359
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of claims 1, 4---6, 9-11, 14-18.
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