INTUIT INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2020003365 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
15/192,949 06/24/2016 Richard Tauber 327696-000044 4111
155998 7590 07/27/2021
DLA PIPER LLP US - Intuit
ATTN: PATENT GROUP
11911 Freedom Dr.
Suite 300
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
MITCHELL, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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):
PatentProsecutionRes@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD TAUBER, KRISTIN A. CENTOFANTE,
AJITHKUMAR KATTIL, CHETAN DEEPAK DESAI, and
THOMAS W. WHITCOMB
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LARRY J. HUME, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–31, which are all claims pending in
the application. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intuit, Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to “Methods, Systems, and Articles of
Manufacture for Implementing Software Application Development and
Releases.” See Spec. (Title). In particular, Appellant’s disclosed
embodiments and claimed invention are described in the Abstract.
Various aspects described herein are directed to a system
that develops and manages releases of software applications.
The system includes a server-side branch management module
to automatically create one or more branches for deployment of
a software application release, a deployment repository to store
one or more box sets for a plurality of artifacts for the software
release, and a code repository to store the plurality of artifacts.
The system may further include a release management module
configured to manage continuing releases of the software
application, a continuous deployment dashboard module
configured to receive the plurality of box sets from the
deployment repository, and one or more development modules
configured to create or modify at least some artifacts of the
plurality of artifacts. The plurality of artifacts are automatically
tagged with respective packaging types for automatic
generation of the plurality of box sets.
Spec. 76 (Abstract).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal (emphasis added to contested prior-art limitations):

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Nov. 1, 2019); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 1, 2020); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 12, 2020); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed July 10, 2019); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
June 24, 2016).
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

3
1. A system for implementing software development
and releases, comprising:
one or more server computers connected to a plurality of
client computing systems via one or more computer networks;
a branch management module operatively coupled to a
release management module and configured at least to create
one or more branches for deployment of a software application
release;
at least one persistent deployment repository accessible
by at least the branch management module and the release
management module and configured to store links
corresponding to a plurality of artifacts for the software
application release,
wherein the links stored in the at least one persistent
deployment repository includes references to contents of the
plurality of artifacts that are stored in a separate repository from
the links;
at least one persistent code repository accessible by at
least the branch management module and the release
management module and configured to store the plurality of
artifacts;
the one or more server computers configured to classify
the links corresponding to the plurality of artifacts into a
plurality of box sets based at least in part upon one or more
environments for the software application release and
packaging type,
the box sets comprising one or more box sets comprising
links to deployable artifacts organized by package type,
wherein metadata and other objects not associated with a
package type are organized together into an archived package
type; and
the one or more server computers configured to deploy
the software application release at least by respectively
delivering the plurality of box sets via one or more network
components to the one or more environments.
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence:
Name Reference Date
Heyhoe et al. (“Heyhoe”) US 2009/0300580 A1 Dec. 3, 2009
Mutisya et al. (“Mutisya”) US 2013/0036402 A1 Feb. 7, 2013
Anderson et al. (“Anderson”) US 2014/0189641 A1 July 3, 2014
Elgarat US 9,606,901 B1 Mar. 28, 2017
Anonymous “Maven — Introduction to the POM” as posted at
June 2016 and retrieved from the web archive
on 11/27/18 (Year: 2016). (“Maven”)
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1–7, 9–11, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Anderson and Maven. Final
Act. 4.
R2. Claims 8, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, and 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination
of Anderson, Maven, and Mutisya. Final Act. 14.
R3. Claims 13, 15, 16, 18, 23, 25, 26, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Anderson,
Maven, Mutisya, and Heyhoe. Final Act. 19.
R4. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Anderson, Maven, and Elgarat. Final
Act. 23.
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

5
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 9–14) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of obviousness
Rejection R1 of claims 1–7, 9–11, and 21 on the basis of representative
claim 1.
Remaining claims 8, 12–20, and 22–31 in Rejections R2 through R4,
not argued separately, stand or fall with the respective independent claim
from which they depend.3
1. § 103 Rejection R1 of Claims 1–7, 9–11, and 21
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 11–14; Reply Br. 2–4) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Anderson and Maven is in error. These contentions present
us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests “[a] system for implementing software development and
releases” that includes, inter alia:
one or more server computers configured to classify the links
corresponding to the plurality of artifacts into a plurality of box
sets based at least in part upon one or more environments for

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

6
the software application release and packaging type, the box
sets comprising one or more box sets comprising links to
deployable artifacts organized by package type, wherein
metadata and other objects not associated with a package type
are organized together into an archived package type,
as recited in claim 1?
Principles of Law
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.
In KSR, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

7
Id. at 417.
Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Analysis
The Examiner finds the combination of Anderson and Maven teaches
or suggests the disputed limitations. See Final Act. 4–6.
Appellant contends, “Maven fails to teach or suggest ‘box sets’
comprising ‘links to deployable artifacts organized by package type, wherein
metadata and other objects not associated with a package type are organized
together into an archived package type.’” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further
argues, “the cited portions of Maven never state or imply that the ‘jar’ or
‘POM’ are 1) for links to deployable artifacts organized by package type; or
2) include metadata and other objects not associated with a package type.”
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

8
Appeal Br. 11. Additionally, Appellant argues that Maven shows that the
default setting is that “control metadata files” are not included in the source
directory of an “assembly archive.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Maven pp. 126–27).
In response, the Examiner finds Maven’s “POM files comprise . . .
links.” Ans. 4 (citing Maven pp. 21–24). One of the links in Maven is
“{project.basedir}/src/main/resources.” Ans. 4 (citing Maven
p. 22). The Examiner further finds that Maven’s links point to “resources”
(Maven p. 63), and that resources are considered to be artifacts. Ans. 4. The
Examiner determined that “Maven’s ‘links’ identify a location from which
the artifact can be accessed or retrieved and thus constitute ‘links.’” Ans. 4.
The Examiner also finds that “these links, and the artifacts they
represent, are assigned, and thus organized by, a package type.” Ans. 4
(citing Maven p. 58, § 4.2). Maven says a link points to “resources” for a
project’s base directory “project.basedir.” Maven p. 22. Maven also teaches
that a project has “packaging” such as found in the “pom” and “jar” file
formats. See Maven p. 58. The Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “metadata and other objects not associated with a package
type are organized together into an archived package type” (Claim 1), is
“any data or artifacts not previously associated with a package type are
collectively assigned a package type which is or will be archived (e.g.
packaged in a ‘.jar’ file).” Ans. 4.
The Examiner finds that Maven teaches assigning a package type to
metadata because, “Maven discloses . . . ‘JAR is the default packaging
type’. . . . Accordingly any artifact(s) not associated with a package type will
be assigned the ‘JAR’ package type by default.” Ans. 4 (citing Maven p. 59
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

9
¶ 1). Maven teaches that its default goals includes a “package” to
“addPluginArtifactMetadata.” See Maven, p. 60 (Table 4.4).
To the extent that a box set of links may be defined, in agreement with
the Examiner, and as cited above, we find that POM files are a box set of
links that point to resources/artifacts, and that a POM file is a packaging
type. Maven teaches POMs are a package type, and that there is a default
package type of JAR, therefore every package has a type. See generally
Maven p. 8. Maven also teaches that a default goal of plugin packaging is to
add plugin artifact metadata. See Maven p. 60. Therefore, metadata is
included in packages, and each package is assigned a package type.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant points to a control flag in an
embodiment of Maven that may be used so that control metadata is not
copied to a linked source directory. Reply Br. 3–4 (citing Maven § 8.2.1).
We find this citation is not persuasive because the control flag
“useDefaultExluded” of Maven can also be set to false, in which case,
according to Maven, the metadata files would be copied to the source
directory. See Maven pp. 126-27. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Maven teaches the argued limitations.
Appellant argues that it “is unclear how Anderson’s disclosure that
‘packages are built into an application’ cited as being both the end result of
Anderson and the alleged motivation for a combination with Maven
motivates a person of ordinary skill in the art to [perform the claimed
invention].” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Maven and Anderson are both
related to lifecycle management, as claimed. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

10
that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adapt
Anderson to use “existing technologies,” such as Maven. Ans. 6.
We agree with Examiner that Maven’s use of POMs and JAR file
formats represent industry standard practice for lifecycle management. We
also agree that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to adapt Anderson to Maven, because Maven was an existing
technology that would yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellant additionally alleges “the Final Office Action improperly
relies on the teachings from the Appellant’s specification to force several
additions to Anderson.” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). We disagree
with Appellant’s contention because Appellant offers no evidence of that
allegation. See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054.
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach
or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2–7, 9–11, and 21, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
2. Rejections R2–R4 of Claims 8, 12–20, and 22–31
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness Rejections R2 through R4 of claims 8, 12–20, and 22–31
under § 103 (see Appeal Br. 13–14), we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims. Arguments not made are waived.
Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

11
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2–4) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in
the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.
CONCLUSIONS
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections.
More specifically, Appellant has not persuasively argued that the
Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections R1 through R4 of
claims 1–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art combinations of
record, and we sustain the rejections.

Appeal 2020-003365
Application 15/192,949

12
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/B
asis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–11, 21 103
Anderson,
Maven 1–7, 9–11, 21
8, 12, 14, 17,
19, 20, 22, 24,
27, 29, 30
103
Anderson,
Maven,
Mutisya
8, 12, 14, 17,
19, 20, 22, 24,
27, 29, 30

13, 15, 16, 18,
23, 25, 26, 28 103
Anderson,
Maven,
Mutisya,
Heyhoe
13, 15, 16, 18,
23, 25, 26, 28
31 103
Anderson,
Maven,
Elgarat
31
Overall
Outcome 1–31
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED