Shreyank Gupta

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2020

12948113 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2020)

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.
12/948,113 11/17/2010 Shreyank Gupta 05220.871 (P0824) 3217
14400 7590 08/31/2020
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Red Hat
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
FISHER, PAUL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2020 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):
patents@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHREYANK GUPTA
____________

Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS,
and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–19, which are all of
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer herein to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed May 15, 2018, the
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Sept. 7, 2018, the Reply Brief filed Dec. 20, 2018
(“Reply Br.”), the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed Sept. 26, 2017,
and the original Specification (“Spec.”) and Figures (“Figs.”) filed Nov. 17,
2010.
2 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Red Hat, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

2
Introduction
Appellant describes that “[e]mbodiments of the present invention
relate to project management [and s]pecifically . . . to automatically
modifying task status in a project management system via keywords in
source code version control commit logs.” Spec. ¶ 1. In discussing the
background to the invention, Appellant explains that, in the situation of a
task status being tracked both by a project management tool and a source
code revision control tool, when the project management tool requires
manual updating of task status data whereas the source code revision control
tool automatically updates its corresponding task status data, “the task status
data in the project management tool is not always up to date and reliable.”
Spec. ¶ 5.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
identifying a plurality of tasks of modifying source code
for a project and corresponding current task status data for the
plurality of tasks in a project management data store coupled to
a project management system, wherein the current task status
data indicates a current state of modifying the source code for a
corresponding task;
extracting, from a directory location of a source code
revision control system separate from the project management
system, a commit log indicating changes made to the source
code, the commit log stored by the source code revision control
system in a source code revision data store separate from the
project management data store, and the commit log comprising
new task status data for one of the plurality of tasks;
determining whether the commit log has been previously
parsed;
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

3
in response to a determination that the commit log has
not been previously parsed, identifying a keyword within the
commit log;
parsing, by a processing device, data in the commit log
that is located within a defined range of the keyword to identify
a task identifier in the commit log that corresponds to the
keyword, wherein the keyword comprises the new task status
data that indicates a new state of modifying the source code for
the one of the plurality of tasks;
changing the current task status data in the project
management data store for the one of the plurality of tasks to
reflect the new state of modifying the source code for the one of
the plurality of tasks to synchronize the current task status data
in the project management data store with the new state of
modifying the source code as indicated in the commit log
extracted from the source code revision control system;
continuously updating the current task status data in the
project management data store in view of a subsequent parsing
of the commit log;
transmitting a notification via a network to a client
device, the notification reflecting the current task status data as
changed in the project management data store; and
in response to a determination that the keyword is not
located in the commit log, deleting the commit log.
Appeal Br. 22–23 (Claims App’x).
References and Rejections
The rejections rely on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Oddo US 2003/0105681 A1 June 5, 2003
Guturu US 6,581,075 B1 June 17, 2003
Wakui US 2005/0096934 A1 May 5, 2005
McKnight US 7,143,345 B2 Nov. 28, 2006
Chigusa US 2008/0154882 A1 June 26, 2008
Motoyama US 7,406,432 B1 July 29, 2008
Best US 8,312,430 B2 Nov.13, 2012
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

4

The Examiner rejected claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–19 (i.e., all pending
claims) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an
abstract idea), without reciting significantly more. Final Act. 2–4.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, 18, and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Motoyama, Best, Oddo,
McKnight, Chigusa, and Wakui. Final Act. 4–56.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Motoyama, Best, Oddo, McKnight, Chigusa, Wakui,
and Guturu. Final Act. 56–64.
ANALYSIS
The § 101 Rejection
For the § 101 rejection, Appellant argues all pending claims together
as a group. Appeal Br. 7–11. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In issues involving subject matter eligibility, our inquiry focuses on
whether the claims satisfy the two-step test set forth by the Supreme Court in
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). The Court instructs us
to “first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-
ineligible concept.” Id. at 218. In this case, the inquiry centers on whether
the claims are directed to an abstract idea. If the initial threshold is met, we
then move to the second step, in which we “consider the elements of each
claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Id. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 78 (2012)). The Court
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

5
describes the second step as a search for “an ‘“inventive concept”’—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
In 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101 consistent with Alice and subsequent Federal Circuit decisions. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50–
57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”) see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility
Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942–53 (Oct. 17, 2019) (providing
“examples as well as a discussion of various issues raised by the public
comments” to the Guidance). Under the Guidance, we first look to whether
the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (referred to as Step 2A, prong 1 in
the Guidance); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h))
(referred to as Step 2A, prong 2 in the Guidance).
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then move to Step
2B of the Guidance, in which we look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

6
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Alice/Mayo Step One, 2019 Guidance Step 2A, Prong One
(Does Claim 1 Recite a Patent-Ineligible Concept?)
For our prong one analysis, we consider the following limitations
shown here in italics to be the only limitations in claim 1 that do not
describe (recite) a part of an abstract idea:
[1] identifying a plurality of tasks of modifying source
code for a project and corresponding current task status data for
the plurality of tasks in a project management data store
coupled to a project management system, wherein the current
task status data indicates a current state of modifying the source
code for a corresponding task;
[2] extracting, from a directory location of a source code
revision control system separate from the project management
system, a commit log indicating changes made to the source
code, the commit log stored by the source code revision control
system in a source code revision data store separate from the
project management data store, and the commit log comprising
new task status data for one of the plurality of tasks;
[3] determining whether the commit log has been
previously parsed;
[4] in response to a determination that the commit log has
not been previously parsed, identifying a keyword within the
commit log;
[5] parsing, by a processing device, data in the commit
log that is located within a defined range of the keyword to
identify a task identifier in the commit log that corresponds to
the keyword, wherein the keyword comprises the new task
status data that indicates a new state of modifying the source
code for the one of the plurality of tasks;
[6] changing the current task status data in the project
management data store for the one of the plurality of tasks to
reflect the new state of modifying the source code for the one of
the plurality of tasks to synchronize the current task status data
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

7
in the project management data store with the new state of
modifying the source code as indicated in the commit log
extracted from the source code revision control system;
[7] continuously updating the current task status data in
the project management data store in view of a subsequent
parsing of the commit log;
[8] transmitting a notification via a network to a client
device, the notification reflecting the current task status data as
changed in the project management data store; and
[9] in response to a determination that the keyword is not
located in the commit log, deleting the commit log.
The first step recites “identifying a plurality of tasks of modifying
source code for a project and corresponding current task status data for the
plurality of tasks in [] project management data . . . [for] a project
management system,3 wherein the current task status data indicates a current
state of modifying the source code for a corresponding task.” This describes
an activity that human source code developers can perform in their minds,
e.g., an observation or evaluation. Thus, the first step recites an abstract idea
in the category of mental processes. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The first step also recites an abstract concept because it describes a way to
manage human interactions (e.g., among source code developers) following
rules or instructions. The 2019 Guidance explains this is of one of certain

3 Limitations describing the relatedness of “project management data” to “a
project management system” are abstract because, as discussed infra, people
can establish these data relationships (1) using mental processes or (2), in the
course of following rules or instructions during managed interactions
between people, i.e., as part of one of certain methods of organizing human
activity; in either case, as the 2019 Guidance explains, such limitations
describe (recite) an abstract idea. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

8
methods of organizing human activity that, in accord with judicial precedent,
are deemed abstract. Id.
The second step recites “extracting, from a [] location of a source
code revision control [SCRC] system [SCRCS] separate from the project
management [PM] system [PMS], a commit log indicating changes made to
the source code, the commit log stored by the source code revision control
system . . ., and the commit log comprising new task status data for one of
the plurality of tasks.” This describes obtaining the “commit log” with “new
task status data” from a “separate” SCRCS location. Subsequent steps parse
the commit log to obtain data and use it to synchronize PMS task status data
with the SCRCS task status data. Except for generic computer requirements
such as a “processing device” or “data store,” human source code developers
can perform all of the functionality of these steps in their minds and/or using
pen and paper (i.e., mental steps) or by interacting as instructed (i.e.,
managing personal behavior or interactions). For example, developers can
be instructed to observe whether a commit log file has a modification date
this is later than the date of the last time the file was parsed, thus
“determining whether the commit log has been previously parsed,” as
recited. Thus, the foregoing limitations of claim 1 recite abstract concepts
because they amount to mental processes or rules or instructions for
managing human interactions, i.e., one of certain methods of organizing
human activity that have been deemed to be abstract as described in the 2019
Guidance. Id.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an
abstract idea for, in the words of Appellant’s Specification, “automatically
modifying task status in a project management system via keywords in
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

9
source code version control commit logs.” Spec. ¶ 1. Stated differently,
claim 1 recites an abstract idea for using SCRC commit logs to synchronize
task status data between PM and SCRC systems. See Apple, Inc. v.
Ameranth Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can
generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”). Thus, our
analysis proceeds to prong two.
Alice/Mayo Step One, 2019 Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two
(Does Claim 1 Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application?)
We next consider whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a
practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine this,
we identify whether there are “any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine
whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added); see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c),
(e)–(h).
Here, as identified above, beyond the limitations describing the
abstract idea, claim 1 recites the following technological limitations, shown
here in italics: “a project management data store coupled to a project
management system,” “a source code revision data store separate from the
project management data store,” extracting the commit log from “a
directory location,” “parsing, by a processing device,” “continuously
updating the current task status data,” and “deleting the commit log.” “Data
stores,” “processing devices,” “continuously” performing tasks, “directory”
locations, and “deleting” are basic features of fundamental computer system
technology. The Specification confirms this by describing such technology
features at a high, generic level. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 19–23, 29, 37, 52. These
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

10
additional elements are generic and do not result in an improvement to a
technology or technical field—instead, the claim recites basic technology to
automate performance of an abstract idea. There is no improvement to “the
functioning of the computer itself” or “any other technology or technical
field.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 225). Neither do
these computer limitations qualify as applying the judicial exception with “a
particular machine,” because the “computer system” provides its
conventional functions and requires no more than general purpose computer
equipment. See MPEP § 2106.05(b); see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716–17 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that mere
recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept).
Appellant’s arguments similarly do not persuade us that claim 1
effects a transformation of any recited articles, which are simply used for
their ordinary purposes, or that claim 1 includes any other meaningful
(technological) limitations, i.e., limitations beyond simply “linking the use”
of the abstract idea to generic technology. See MPEP § 2106.05 (c), (e)–(f);
see also id. at (g)–(h) (use of well-known limitations beyond the judicially
excepted matter constitutes “insignificant extra-solution activity” (g) and
claim limitations “merely indicating a field of use or technological
environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to
significantly more” (h)).
Accordingly, we determine the recited judicial exception is not
integrated into a practical application, and that the Examiner did not err in
determining claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, we proceed
to step two of the Alice/Mayo analysis (2019 Guidance Step 2B).
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

11

Alice/Mayo Step Two, 2019 Guidance Step 2B
(Does Claim 1 Recite Significantly More than the Abstract Idea?)
In step two of the Alice/Mayo analysis, we consider whether there are
additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure
the claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Alice, 573
U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73, 77–79). As the 2019
Guidance explains, many of the considerations to determine whether a claim
amounts to “significantly more” under step two of the Alice framework are
already considered as part of determining whether the judicial exception has
been integrated into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this
point of our analysis, we determine if claim 1 adds a specific limitation, or
combination of limitations, that is not a well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field; or whether it simply recites well-
understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of generality. Id.
Here, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, claim 1 does not recite
limitations (or a combination of limitations) additional to those for the
abstract idea that are beyond what were known to those of ordinary skill in
the art to be well-understood, routine, and conventional prior to the
invention. Final Act. 3–4. The high-level, generic disclosure of computer
technology in Appellant’s Specification related to claim 1 confirms this
finding. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 13–23, 29, 37.
Section 101 Conclusion
Appellant’s arguments of error in the § 101 rejection are unpersuasive
in view the foregoing. For clarity, we discuss selected arguments. For
example, in support of the argument “the claims include specific recitations
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

12
that may improve interoperability with a third-party system and data
synchronization that are not abstract and are patentable,” Appellant
compares claim 1 to the claim at issue in in Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green
Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Order on
Petition for Rehearing En Banc, 890 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal Br.
15; Reply Br. 21. Appellant points to paragraph 12 of the Specification as
“indicat[ing] that the claims improve the reliability of the task status data in
the project management system using the disclosed techniques.” Reply Br.
20. This argument is unpersuasive. Paragraph 12 of the Specification
explains:
Typically, whenever a source code revision control system
performs a commit, a user has to manually change the task
statuses in the project management data for the project. Until
this manual process is performed, the task status data in the
source code revision control system and the task status data in
the project management system may not be in sync. Embodi-
ments of the present invention provide a system to automate
this manual process. Users can use a source code revision
control system to commit source code changes and embodi-
ments of the invention automatically can update the task status
in a project management system via keywords in the source
code revision control commit logs to provide more reliable data
in the project management tool.
Spec. ¶ 12. This describes improvements as arising from automating a
previously manual process, not from a technological improvement to
technology for data synchronization and interoperability. Specification
paragraph 12 supports the determination that the improvement arises from
the recited abstract idea(s). See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life
Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1277–79 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(“Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

13
that process patent-eligible.”); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601
F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“In order for the addition of a machine to
impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant
part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function
solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved
more quickly.”). Moreover, Appellant’s reliance on Aatrix is ill-founded as
the court cautions that its holding and dicta are specifically limited to the
procedural context of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1129–30 (“Nothing in this opinion should be viewed as
going beyond the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.”). Appellant proffers no explanation
for how the situation at hand is akin to Aatrix’s context of a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion.
Appellant also contends Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), compels a determination that claim 1 is patent
eligible. Appeal Br. 15–17; see also Reply Br. 22, 31–32. This argument is
unpersuasive because, unlike the claim at issue in Enfish, which recited a
specific database technology improvement, see 822 F.3d at 1335–37,
Appellant’s claim 1 recites only routine technology to automate an otherwise
abstract process.
Appellant’s reliance on Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom,
Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is similarly unavailing. See Appeal Br.
19–20; Reply Br. 24. The claim at issue in Amdocs recited a combination of
“arguably generic components” but also recited a specific “enhancing
limitation [that] necessarily requires that these generic components operate
in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer
functionality.” 841 F.3d at 1300–01. Unlike Amdocs’ specific recitation of
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

14
a limitation necessarily requiring unconventional operation of generic
technology components, claim 1, as discussed above, recites only
conventional operation of technology components, in order to automate an
otherwise manual process.
Appellant’s arguments based on BASCOM Global Internet Services,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), are also not
persuasive. See Appeal Br. 20–21; Reply Br. 24–25. The automation of a
previously manual task to improve synchronizing task status data across two
software packages is not analogous to the claims at issue in BASCOM, which
recited a combination including an ISP server, remote client devices, and
particular Internet filtering elements or schemes placed within that network
environment to provide a specific technological improvement to the state of
the art for Internet filtering. See BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345–46 (setting
forth claims), 1349–50 (finding the patent eligible claims “recite a specific,
discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content” and do not
“preempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet”).
Accordingly, we sustain the § 101 rejection of claim 1. We also,
therefore, sustain the § 101 rejection of claims 2–6, 8–13, and 15–19, which
Appellant argues are patent eligible for the same reasons as claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 14–21. In doing so, as consistent with the above, we adopt as
our own the Examiner’s findings and reasoning as set forth in the Final
Rejection and Answer.
The § 103 Rejections
Appellant argues Examiner error in the rejection of all pending claims
based on independent claim 1 and separately argues error in the rejection of
dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 based on claim 3. See Appeal Br. 7–14. We
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

15
have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3 and disagree with
Appellant’s conclusions. Instead, as consistent with our discussion below,
we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the Final Office
Action from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the Answer. We
highlight the following for emphasis.

Claim 1
Claim 1 recites
extracting, from a directory location of a [SCRCS] separate
from the [PMS], a commit log indicating changes made to the
source code, the commit log stored by the [SCRCS] in a source
code revision data store separate from the project management
data store, and the commit log comprising new task status data
for one of the plurality of tasks.
The Examiner finds Motoyama teaches or suggests this limitation except for
the recited aspect of the SCRCS being separate from the PMS, for which the
Examiner relies on the teachings of Wakui in combination with Motoyama
(and the remaining references). Final Act. 5–6, 16 (citing Motoyama 7:15–
51, 10:2–32, 12:11–45, Figs. 5B, 12–13; Wakui ¶¶ 23, 31, 47, 52, 62).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in this finding because Motoyama
does not teach or suggest the recited requirement “that the log is stored by a
[SCRCS] in a source code revision data store separate from the project
management data store.” Appeal Br. 9 (“There does not appear to be a
teaching or suggestion in Motoyama of extracting a commit log from a
[SCRCS] that is separate from a [PMS].”).
This argument, which focuses on the disclosure of Motoyama while
ignoring the disclosure of Wakui, is unpersuasive. The Examiner explained
that the combination of Motoyama and Wakui, not Motoyama alone, teaches
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

16
this disputed limitation. Final Act. 16. The relevant inquiry is whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant further argues “Motoyama does not teach or suggest a
source code revision control system at all.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant
construes Motoyama too narrowly. Motoyama discloses that objects in its
project database can include software code. See Motoyama, 7:15–51.
Motoyama teaches using revision numbers for managing objects (e.g.,
software code) stored in the project database. See Id. at 10:33–52.
Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding Motoyama’s
disclosure of a system that manages source code versions teaches the recited
source code revision control system (SCRCS).
Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in relying on Wakui for
teaching the “separate” aspect of the disputed limitation, because “Wakui
does not appear to teach two separate systems.” Appeal Br. 9. In particular,
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in mapping Wakui’s “parts server” and
“parts lifetime managing server” to the SCRCS separate from the PMS,
because “the parts server and parts lifetime managing server are a part of a
same part lifetime management system.” Id. at 10. This argument is
unpersuasive. Wakui discloses its parts server and parts lifetime managing
server as two separate computer systems connected over a network. See
Wakui Fig. 3. Artisans of ordinary skill would have understood the general
proposition that systems (e.g., Wakui’s part lifetime management system)
often include combinations of separate subsystems (e.g., a parts server
separate from a part lifetime managing server). Cf. Ans. 11–12 (explaining
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

17
that Motoyama teaches the functionality of the elements of the disputed
limitation and “the Wakui reference merely establishes it is known to have
these elements in separate locations”).
Appellant further argues “Wakui does not appear to teach that a first
system extracts a commit log from another system that is separate from the
first system.” Appeal Br. 9. This argument is unpersuasive. The rejection
relies on Motoyama (i.e., not Wakui) for teaching extracting a commit log.
See Final Act. 5–6, 16; In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426 (“[O]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Appellant furthermore argues “Wakui is non-analogous art as it
relates to solving a different problem than the current claims.” Appeal Br. 9;
Reply Br. 11–12. This argument is unpersuasive. A prior art reference is
analogous to an application if it is either (i) in the same field of Appellant’s
endeavor, or (ii) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In
re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Wakui’s disclosure
automates coordination of information exchange (e.g., status) related to a
design revision between a parts server and a parts lifetime managing server
that are separate from each other (see Wakui ¶¶ 50–54, Fig. 3) is at least
pertinent to the problem of automating coordination of task status between a
SCRCS and a PMS that are separate from each other. We also agree in
particular with the Examiner that, with respect to the limitations for SCRCS
being separate from the PMS, Wakui pertinently “establishes it is known to
have these elements in separate locations.” See Ans. 12–13.
Claim 1 also recites
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

18
changing the current task status data in the project management
data store for the one of the plurality of tasks to reflect the new
state of modifying the source code for the one of the plurality of
tasks to synchronize the current task status data in the project
management data store with the new state of modifying the
source code as indicated in the commit log extracted from the
[SCRCS].
The Examiner finds this limitation is taught by Motoyama’s
disclosure of updating status, e.g., from draft to official, for software code
stored in a project database. See Final Act. 6–7; see also Ans. 13–14.
Appellant contends Motoyama does not teach or suggest an SCRCS and
therefore cannot teach or suggest this second disputed limitation. Appeal Br.
12–13; see also Reply Br. 13–14. This argument is unpersuasive because, as
discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that Motoyama’s system for
managing versions and status using a project database, including for
software source code, teaches a source code revision control system
(SCRCS), as recited.
Thus, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1 and, along with it,
claims 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, 18, 19.
Claim 3
Claim 3’s parent claim 2 recites “searching the commit log for the
keyword in view of a determination that the commit log is a new commit
log.” Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding that Motoyama and
Oddo teach the limitations recited by claim 2, including “a determination
that the commit log is a new commit log.” See Appeal Br. passim; Final
Act. 18–20.
Claim 3 recites
“[t]he method of claim 2, wherein determining whether the
commit log is a new commit log comprises:”
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

19
comparing a time stamp of the commit log to a time
stamp of a commit log that was last searched; and
searching the commit log for the keyword in view
of a determination that the time of the time stamp of the
commit log is after the time of the time stamp of the
commit log that was last searched.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner finds Guturu and Motoyama teach the specific method
recited by claim 3 for performing claim 2’s determination. Final Act. 56–59.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in relying on Guturu. Appeal Br. 13–
14; Reply Br. 14–17. In particular, Appellant argues Guturu’s “comparing a
timestamp of a data record to a timestamp of a data update request is not a
teaching of comparing a timestamp of a commit log to a time stamp of a
commit log that was last searched.” Reply Br. 16.
This argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner relies on Motoyama,
not Guturu, for teaching the recited commit log. See Final Act. 5–6, 57–59.
Appellant does not explain how or why the Examiner errs in relying on
Guturu’s time stamp teachings in combination with Motoyama’s commit log
teachings for the rejection of claim 3. See Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 14–
17 (with respect to Guturu’s teachings in combination with the other cited
references, contending summarily only that “[f]urther, even when
hypothetically combined with Motoyama, Best, Oddo, McKnight, Chigusa,
and Wakui the combination does not teach or suggest determining whether a
commit log is new by comparing a time stamp of the commit log to a time
stamp of a commit log that was last searched, as recited by claim 3”).
Appeal 2019-006439
Application 12/948,113

20
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–13,
5–19
101 Eligibility 1–6, 8–13, 15–19
1, 2, 4–6, 8,
9, 11–13,
15, 16, 18,
19
103(a)
Motoyama, Best,
Oddo, McKnight,
Chigusa, Wakui
1, 2, 4–6, 8,
9, 11–13, 15,
16, 18, 19

3, 10, 17 103(a)
Motoyama, Best,
Oddo, McKnight,
Chigusa, Wakui,
Guturu
3, 10, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–13, 15–19
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