Jim Benge et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 14, 2019

14729579 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2019)

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.
14/729,579 06/03/2015 Jim Benge RMNS.210229 9171
5251 7590 08/14/2019
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BLVD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
WU, DAXIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2019 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):
BPARKERSON@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
docketing.shb@clarivate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JIM BENGE, RICHARD FRANK,
DON SHEFFIELD, and DOUG BARON
____________

Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,5791
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, and 16. We have
jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellants identify Rimini Street, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 3.)
Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,579

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to an
automation framework for providing updates in a distributed environment
that provides tasks to a client environment. (Abstract.)
Independent claims 1 and 8, reproduced below (with bracketed
limitation numbering included in claim 1), are illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. Non-transitory, computer-readable storage media storing
information that, when executed by one or more computing
devices, performs operations for updating software in a
distributed computing environment comprising:
[1] receiving by a secure network-accessible server a task
that is tailored for a client environment;
[2] storing, in the secure network-accessible server, the task
in a secure account dedicated to the client environment the task
including a software update to be executed by one or more
client devices in the client environment;
[3] executing a task-monitoring module that monitors a
status of the task, including whether the task has been
transmitted to the one or more client devices and whether the
task has been completed by the one or more client devices;
[4] receiving a request to transmit the task to the one or more
client devices, the request being received from an automated
task manager running on a client device of the one or more
client devices, which is authenticated to the secure account;
[5] transmitting the task to the automated task manager;
[6] retrieving by the task-monitoring module a status update
that indicates the task has been transmitted to the one or more
client devices;
[7] updating by the task-monitoring module a task-monitor
graphical user interface to graphically indicate that the task has
been sent to the one or more client devices and is being
executed;
Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,579

3
[8] receiving a message from the automated task manager
that indicates whether the task was successfully completed, the
message including a message text;
[9] retrieving the message by the task-monitoring module;
[10] rendering by the task-monitor graphical user interface a
selectable link that, when selected by an input device, displays
the message text;
[11] receiving an input of the selectable link; and
[12] displaying the message text by the task-monitor graphical
user interface, the message text originating from the client
environment.

8. Non-transitory, computer-readable storage media storing
information that, when executed by one or more computing
devices, performs operations for updating software in a
distributed computing environment comprising:
automatically determining, by an automated task
manager running in a client environment of one or more client
devices, whether a task is queued up by sending a request to a
secure account stored on a secure network-accessible server in a
server environment;
receiving, based on the determining, the task from the
secure network-accessible server hosting the secure account,
wherein the task is received by the task manager running in the
client environment and wherein the task includes an update to
be applied to a software program running in the client
environment;
routing the task to one or more handler programs that are
running in the client environment and that update the software
program by:
creating a before-update folder and an after-update folder
in the client environment;
populating the before-update folder with a first version of
the software program that is to be updated;
populating the after-update folder with a second version
of the software program that is to be updated and that is
substantially similar to the first version of the software
program;
Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,579

4
transforming the second version of the software program
into an updated software program by transforming the second
version of the software program to include the update;
generating a data set by comparing the first version of the
software program in the before-update folder to the updated
software program in the after-update folder and by identifying
one or more differences between the first version and the
second version, the one or more differences being included in
the data set, which does not include the first version and the
second version of the software program, and
transmitting the data set to the secure network-accessible
server in the server environment;
generating by the one or more handler programs a
message that describes whether the task was successfully
completed;
communicating the message from the one or more
handler programs to the task manager; and
sending the message to the secure network-accessible
server to provide a status of the task.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Csaszar (US 2015/0026675 A1; Jan. 22, 2015), Huang
(US 2014/0007070 A1; Jan. 2, 2014), and Knepper (US 2012/0117532 A1;
May 10, 2012). Non-Final Act. 3.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Csaszar, Goetz (US 2012/0042003 A1; Feb. 16, 2012), Huang, and
Miron (US 6,401,239 B1; June 4, 2002). Non-Final Act. 12.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Csaszar, Huang, Knepper, and Hillyard (US 2015/0304843 A1; Oct. 22,
2015). Non-Final Act. 20.
Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,579

5
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Csaszar, Huang, Miron, and Satyanarayanan (US 2003/0046260 A1;
Mar. 6, 2003). Non-Final Act. 21.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Csaszar, Goetz, Huang, Knepper, and Morgan (US 2015/0331755 A1;
Nov. 19, 2015). Non-Final Act. 22.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues:2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Csaszar, Huang, and Knepper teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitations,

[2] storing, in the secure network-accessible server, the task in a
secure account dedicated to the client environment . . .,
[3] executing a task-monitoring module that monitors a status of
the task, including whether the task has been transmitted to the one or
more client devices . . .,
[4] receiving a request to transmit the task to the one or more client
devices, the request being received from an automated task manager
running on a client . . .,
[5] transmitting the task to the automated task manager,
[8] receiving a message from the automated task manager that
indicates whether the task was successfully completed, the message
including a message text,

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 2, 2018); the Non-Final
Office Action (mailed June 1, 2017); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
June 26, 2018), for the respective details.
Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,579

6
[9] retrieving the message by the task-monitoring module,
and
[12] displaying the message tex`t by the task-monitor graphical user
interface, the message text originating from the client environment.
(App. Br. 10–15.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Csaszar, Goetz, Huang, and Miron teaches or suggests the independent claim
8 limitations,
automatically determining, by an automated task manager
running in a client environment of one or more client devices, whether
a task is queued up by sending a request to a secure account stored on
a secure network-accessible server in a server environment,
and
receiving, based on the determining, the task from the secure
network-accessible server hosting the secure account, wherein the task
is received by the task manager running in the client environment and
wherein the task includes an update to be applied to a software
program running in the client environment.
(App. Br. 16–18.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
First Issue
In finding that the combination of Csaszar, Huang, and Knepper
teaches or suggests the claim 1 limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on
Csaszar’s disclosure of a light installer installed on a client device using a
client installation module. Once installed and executed by the client, the
light installer presents an interface prompting the user for authorization of a
Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,579

7
client-side application. (Non-Final Act. 3–5; Csaszar ¶¶ 18, 45, 60, 27, 52,
58, 60, 71–73, 49, 53, 64, 35, 61, 49, Figs. 1–3.)
The Examiner further relies on the disclosure of Huang of download
management logic within a global software marketplace mechanism that
determines whether both the download process and the installation process
have been completed. (Non-Final Act. 6–7; Huang ¶¶ 51, 68, 69, Fig. 8.)
The Examiner further relies on the disclosure of Knepper of a user interface
dashboard that denotes the software deployed to a plurality of environments
through visible indicia. (Non-Final Act. 8–10; Knepper ¶¶ 99, 100, 66, 104,
41, Figs. 19, 10, 20.)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred as to several limitations of
claim 1. Particularly, Appellants argue that “the references do not describe,
teach, or suggest” limitation [12] (App. Br. 11), and Csaszar “at least fails to
teach or suggest” limitations [2] and [4]. (App. Br. 12.) Appellants further
argue that “Huang fails to teach or suggest” limitations [3] and [4] (App. Br.
13), and “Huang fails to disclose” limitation [5]. (App. Br. 14.) Appellants
further argue that “Knepper fails to teach or suggest” limitations [8], [9], and
[12]. (App. Br. 15.)
For the reasons below, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Where possible, claim limitations will be considered in the order they appear
in independent claim 1.
Limitations [2] and [4]: The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
limitations [2] and [4] are taught or suggested by the combination of Csaszar
and Huang, in which the teachings of “Csaszar’s content management
system” are combined with “Huang’s global software marketplace
mechanism.” Ans. 30; see Ans. 30–32. Appellants do not argue the
Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,579

8
combination, but attack Csaszar and Huang individually. See App. Br. 12–
13. Accordingly, Appellants fail to address the Examiner’s detailed findings
and reasoning. “[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art,”
and “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 426 (CCPA 1981). Appellants also argue that
limitation [4] is not taught or suggested by Huang; see App. Br. 13. Again,
Appellants fail to address the Examiner’s detailed findings and reasoning.
Limitation [3]: The Examiner finds, and we agree, that limitation [3]
is taught or suggested by Huang’s download management logic in which
“the global software marketplace mechanism determines (monitors) whether
the download process has completed.” Ans. 33–34, citing Huang ¶ 68, Fig.
8, steps 808, 810, 812. Appellants do not address the Examiner’s detailed
findings and reasoning, but instead point to other portions of Huang in order
to offer an alternate, but unpersuasive, explanation. See App. Br. 14, citing
Huang ¶¶ 37, 40–41.
Limitation [5]: The Examiner finds, and we agree, that limitation [5]
is taught or suggested by Csaszar’s client installation module 136 that “can
be configured to transmit the light installer to client device 102.sub.i in
response to client device 102.sub.i requesting to install the client-side
application.” Non-Final Act. 5, citing Csaszar ¶ 49. Appellants argue that
Huang fails to disclose this feature (see App. Br. 14), and thus do not
address the Examiner’s detailed findings and reasoning.
Limitations [8], [9], [12]: Regarding these limitations, Appellants
“respectfully submit[] that Knepper does not teach or suggest these features,
Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,579

9
and instead merely provides information based on actions taken by the CPD
module wherein status updates are provided by visual indicia.” App. Br. 15,
citing Knepper ¶ 99.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that:
a) “Knepper explicitly teaches displaying visible indicia . . . denoting the
software has been deployed . . . [and] the task was successfully
completed” (Ans. 35–36, citing Knepper Fig. 19, ¶ 993);
b) Knepper’s “CPD module 78 . . . may store the information shown”
and “enable[s] users to view,” and “inherently the information is
retrieved in order for the users to review it” (Ans. 36, citing Knepper
¶ 100); and
c) Knepper’s CPD module 78 “inherently [uses] a task-monitor graphical
user interface” (Ans. 36, citing Knepper Fig. 10, ¶ 66, Fig. 20, ¶ 104),
and similarly, Huang’s global marketplace also “inherently [uses] a
task-monitor graphical user interface.” (Ans. 37, citing Huang Fig. 8,
¶ 68.)
We see no error in the Examiner’s detailed findings, and Appellants failed to
challenge the Examiner’s findings as no Reply was filed. Accordingly, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent
claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 not separately argued. See App. Br. 15.

3 While the Answer refers to ¶ 9, this typographical error is harmless, as ¶ 99
explicitly describes Fig. 19, and elsewhere in the Answer the Examiner
refers to Fig. 19 in conjunction with ¶ 99. See, for example, Ans. 9.
Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,579

10
Second Issue
Appellants argue, inter alia, that “Csaszar discusses a user being able
to download an installer for a web-based application on a client device”
(App. Br. 16, citing Csaszar ¶¶ 7–8, 18), and “the content management
system of Csaszar is a system to support the management and
synchronization of actual content across devices and a web-based
application.” App. Br. 17 (emphasis in original), citing Csaszar ¶ 32.
We agree. The claim requires “the task includes an update to be
applied to a software program running in the client environment,” and the
portion of Csaszar cited by the Examiner clearly delineates between the
“client software [that] can synchronize any changes to content” (Csaszar
¶ 32) and the content to be synchronized, which can be “digital data,
documents, text files, audio files, video files, etc.” (Csaszar ¶ 28), with no
indication that executable software is also content. In other words, Csaszar
fails to teach or suggest updating a software program, and further fails to
teach or suggest updating a software program that is running when the
update is applied. None of the remaining references cure this deficiency.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 8, as well as independent claim 16, which
contains a similar limitation, and claims 11 and 15 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 11, 15, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2018-008507
Application 14/729,579

11
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART