Jim Benge et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 14, 201914729579 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation