Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 26, 2021

2020002985 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 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.
15/496,813 04/25/2017 Darren Doyle 401741-US-NP (9029-US) 1086
143198 7590 11/26/2021
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (MS)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
WU, JUNCHUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2021 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DARREN DOYLE, TERRY FARRELL, and
THOMAS DOYLE
________________

Appeal 2020-002985
Application 15/496,813
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-
final rejection of claims 1‒4, 6, 8, 9‒17, 19, and 20, which are all the claims
pending in this application.1 Claims 5, 7, and 18 are canceled. See Appeal
Br. 20, 21, 23 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002985
Application 15/496,813

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to managing software updates, and in
particular to collecting updates to existing code files and automatically
determining other existing code files that may benefit from the same
updates. Spec. ¶¶ 2‒3. Claims 1 and 16 illustrate the appealed subject matter
and read as follows:
1. A system for updating a code file, the system comprising:
an electronic processor configured to
identify the code file stored on a storage device, parse the
code file into a plurality of subsections,
determine a signature for each of the plurality of
subsections,
compare the signature for each of the plurality of
subsections to each of a plurality of predetermined signatures to
determine a degree of similarity between the signature for each
of the plurality of subsections and each of the plurality of
predetermined signatures, each of the plurality of predetermined
signatures associated with a code update fixing a known issue
with an associated code file, and
in response to the degree of similarity between the
signature for one of the plurality of subsections and one of the
plurality of known signatures satisfying a predetermined
threshold, apply the code update associated with the one of the
plurality of known signatures to the one of the plurality of
subsections included in the code file, wherein applying the code
update includes adding a comment to the one of the plurality of
subsections, the comment including at least one edited
instruction based on the code update.

Appeal 2020-002985
Application 15/496,813

3
16. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium including
instructions that, when executed by an electronic processor,
cause the electronic processor to execute a set of functions, the
set of functions comprising:
scanning at least one storage device to identify a plurality
of code files;
determining a type of update for each of the plurality of
code files based on a signature of each of the plurality of code
files, the type of update including at least one selected from a
group consisting of an automatic update, an automatic update
with manual review, and a manual update;
determining a confidence score for each of the plurality
of code files where the type of the update includes an automatic
update, wherein the confidence score indicates a likelihood that
the type of update will be successful;
generating a user interface, the user interface listing the
plurality of code files, the type of update for each of the
plurality of code files, the confidence score for each of the
plurality of code files where the type of the update includes an
automatic update, and at least one selection mechanism for
deploying a software product update;
displaying the user interface on a user device; and
in response to receiving input from a user through the at
least one selection mechanism, deploying the software product
update, wherein deploying the software product update includes
updating one or more instructions included in each of the
plurality of code files.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ronning (US 2003/0212992 A1; Nov. 13, 2003), Howard
(US 2011/0010690 A1; Jan. 13, 2011), McFarlane (US 8,997,046 B1;
Mar. 31, 2015), Smith (US 2004/0158818 A1; Aug. 12, 2004), Lee (US
2005/0149923 A1; July 7, 2005), and Ferlitsch (US 2007/0245333 A1;
Appeal 2020-002985
Application 15/496,813

4
Oct. 18, 2007). Final Act. 2‒8. To this base combination, the Examiner adds
Jorden (US 7,778,983 B2; Aug. 17, 2010) to reject claim 3 (Final Act. 8‒9),
Kim (US 2007/0169067 A1; July 19, 2007) to reject claim 4 (Final Act. 9‒
10), Joukov (US 2012/0054727 A1; Mar. 1, 2012) to reject claim 6 (Final
Act. 10‒11), and O’Neill (US 2007/0169073 A1; July 19, 2007) to reject
claim 8 (Non-Final Act. 11‒12).
Claims 9, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ronning, Smith, Lee, Gilman (US 2013/0159985 A1;
June 20, 2013), and Ferlitsch. Non-Final Act. 12‒18. To this base
combination, the Examiner adds Drissi (US 2007/0168946 A1; July 19,
2007) to reject claim 10 (Non-Final Act. 18‒19), Ebert (US 2005/0154557
A1; July 14, 2005) to reject claim 11 (Non-Final Act. 19‒20), Elwell (US
8,527,814 B1; Sept. 3, 2013) to reject claim 12 (Non-Final Act. 20‒21), and
Judelman (US 2014/0082596 A1; Mar. 20, 2014) to reject claim 15 (Non-
Final Act. 21‒23).
Claims 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ronning, Judelman, Gilman, Hammond (US
2005/0144616 A1; June 30, 2005), Kamada (US 2010/0107150 A1; Apr. 29,
2010), Garratt (US 2015/0363185 A1; Dec. 17, 2015), and Li (US
2015/0007169 A1; Jan. 1, 2015). Non-Final Act. 23‒30. To this base
combination, the Examiner adds Hamilton (US 2009/0037869 A1; Feb. 5,
2009) to reject claim 17 (Final Act. 30‒31).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1 and 9
The Examiner finds the combination of Ronning, Howard, McFarlane,
Smith, Lee, and Ferlitsch teaches “wherein applying the code update
Appeal 2020-002985
Application 15/496,813

5
includes adding a comment to the one of the plurality of subsections, the
comment including at least one edited instruction based on the code update.”
Non-Final Act. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds Ferlitsch teaches adding
a comment to the host process, where the comment includes at least one
edited instruction based on the code update. See id. (citing Ferlitsch ¶ 26);
Ans. 34. The Examiner finds Ferlitsch mentions an update confirmation
request that includes commentary descriptions and also mentions confirming
an update command in the commentary. Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 34.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Ferlitsch teaches an
update confirmation request that includes a commentary description from a
remote site about the update. Appeal Br. 12‒13 (citing Ferlitsch ¶ 26).
Appellant argues Ferlitsch makes no mention of adding the commentary
description to a subsection of code or the commentary description including
an edited instruction based on a code update, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 13.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Ferlitsch teaches a
firmware update process where the request to the remote network peripheral
site for a firmware update may be an HTTP command. Ferlitsch ¶ 25. The
request may be of a format that includes a commentary description. Id. ¶ 26.
However, the Examiner fails to establish that Ferlitsch teaches “adding a
comment to the one of the plurality of subsections” or “the comment
including at least one edited instruction based on the code update.” Indeed,
the Examiner makes no explicit findings regarding the “edited instruction”
limitation and does not provide any explanation as to how the cited
commentary description involves adding a comment to the one of the
plurality of subsections of code that is updated, as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2020-002985
Application 15/496,813

6
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to agree with Appellant
that the Examiner fails to sufficiently establish that Ferlitsch teaches
“wherein applying the code update includes adding a comment to the one of
the plurality of subsections, the comment including at least one edited
instruction based on the code update.”
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 9, which recites commensurate
subject matter for which the Examiner relies on the same findings. See Non-
Final Act. 16‒17. Claims 2‒4, 6, 8, and 10‒15 stand rejected as unpatentable
over Ronning, Smith, Lee, Ferlitsch, and a combination of additional
references. See Non-Final Act. 2‒23. The Examiner does not find that the
additionally cited references cure the deficiency identified above. See id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2‒4, 6, 8, and 10‒15
for the same reasons.
Independent Claim 16
The Examiner finds the combination of Ronning, Judelman, Gilman,
Hammond, Kamada, Garratt, and Li teaches or suggests “generating a user
interface, the user interface listing the plurality of code files, the type of
update for each of the plurality of code files, the confidence score for each of
the plurality of code files where the type of the update includes an automatic
update,” as recited in claim 16. Non-Final Act. 23‒29. In particular, the
Examiner finds Kamada teaches generating a user interface that lists a
plurality of code files. Ans. 34 (citing Kamada ¶¶ 46, 81). The Examiner
finds Kamada teaches a type of update for each of the plurality of code files
that is presented in the user interface. Id. at 35 (citing Kamada ¶ 82). The
Appeal 2020-002985
Application 15/496,813

7
Examiner finds Gilman teaches a set of ratings that can be used to determine
whether an update should be applied to a software application. Id. (citing
Gilman ¶ 15). The Examiner finds Kamada teaches a frequency score for the
plurality of code files. Id. (citing Kamada ¶ 88). The Examiner finds Gilman
and Kamada, therefore, teach the interface displays the confidence score for
each of the plurality of code files. Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because neither Gilman nor
Kamada teaches displaying a confidence score in a user interface. Reply
Br. 5. In particular, Appellant argues that even if Gilman’s ratings or
Kamada’s frequency score were considered a confidence score (which
Appellant disputes), neither reference teaches displaying either of these
scores in a user interface. Id. Appellant argues that using a score to
determine a recommendation does not teach displaying the score in a user
interface. Id.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner has not
explained how either Gilman or Kamada teaches “generating a user
interface, the user interface listing . . . the confidence score for each of the
plurality of code files where the type of the update includes an automatic
update.” That is, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Gilman’s
teaching of a set of ratings used to make a recommendation or Kamada’s
mention of a frequency score establishes a user interface that lists these
ratings/scores. Indeed, the user interface relied upon by the Examiner,
Kamada’s Figure 14, does not depict any type of score or rating.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to agree with Appellant
that the Examiner fails to sufficiently establish that Gilman and Kamada
teach or suggest “generating a user interface, the user interface listing the
Appeal 2020-002985
Application 15/496,813

8
plurality of code files, the type of update for each of the plurality of code
files, the confidence score for each of the plurality of code files where the
type of the update includes an automatic update,” as recited in claim 16.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 16. We also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 19 and 20, which depend from claim 16. Claim 17 stands rejected as
unpatentable over the same references applied to claim 16 in addition to
Hamilton. Non-Final Act. 30‒31. The Examiner does not find Hamilton
cures the deficiency identified above. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 17 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1‒4, 6, 8‒17, 19, and 20 is
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 103 Ronning, Howard,
McFarlane, Smith,
Lee, Ferlitsch
1, 2
3 103 Ronning, Howard,
McFarlane, Smith,
Lee, Ferlitsch, Jorden
3
4 103 Ronning, Howard,
McFarlane, Smith,
Lee, Ferlitsch, Kim
4
6 103 Ronning, Howard,
McFarlane, Smith,
Lee, Ferlitsch, Joukov
6
8 103 Ronning, Howard,
McFarlane, Smith,
8
Appeal 2020-002985
Application 15/496,813

9
Lee, Ferlitsch, O’Neill
9, 13, 14 103 Ronning, Smith, Lee,
Ferlitsch, Gilman
9, 13, 14
10 103 Ronning, Smith, Lee,
Ferlitsch, Gilman,
Drissi
10
11 103 Ronning, Smith, Lee,
Ferlitsch, Gilman,
Drissi, Ebert
11
12 103 Ronning, Smith, Lee,
Ferlitsch, Gilman,
Drissi, Elwell
12
15 103 Ronning, Smith, Lee,
Ferlitsch, Gilman,
Judelman
15
16, 19, 20 103 Ronning, Judelman,
Gilman, Hammond,
Kamada, Garratt, Li
16, 19, 20
17 103 Ronning, Judelman,
Gilman, Hammond,
Kamada, Garratt, Li,
Hamilton
17
Overall
Outcome
1‒4, 6, 8‒
17, 19, 20

REVERSED