Ex Parte Biazetti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

12347108 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

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.
12/347,108 12/31/2008 Ana C. Biazetti RSW920080235US1 (412) 1523
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
KUDIRKA, JOSEPH R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANA C. BIAZETTI, THOMAS LUMPP, and
JUERGEN SCHNEIDER
Appeal 2017-001056
Application 12/347,108
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—12. App.
Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as International Business Machines
Corp. App. Br. 2. In an earlier Decision (Appeal No. 2012-009768, mailed
Jan. 14, 2015), we affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—12. Dec.
9.
Appeal 2017-001056
Application 12/347,108
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter “broadly relates to the field of cluster
configuration for high availability computing and more particularly the
present invention relates to the field [of] high availability policy creation for
cluster management.” Spec. para. 1. Claims 1, 6, and 8 are independent.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A method for dynamically creating a high availability
policy based upon entries in a configuration management
database (CMDB) and a best practices template, the method
comprising:
displaying in a computer, a user interface through which
an application is selected for high availability configuration;
directing resource discovery in a CMDB for the selected
application to discover components and dependencies of the
selected application, the resource discovery processing different
configuration items (CIs) in the CMDB in order to identify the
components and dependencies of the selected application;
mapping the components and dependencies discovered for
the selected application in the CMDB to a best practices template
specifying a parameterized high availability topology for the
selected application; and,
storing the best practices template with mapped
components and dependencies as a high availability policy for
the selected application, the policy comprising parameterized
entries of the template replaced with specific entries particular to
the selected application, including a network address and file
system mount point to be used when deploying the high
availability policy.
Rejection
Claims 1—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over O’Brien et al. (US 7,228,453 B2, issued June 5, 2007) and Poirot et al.
(US 2004/0143654 Al, published July 22, 2004). Final Act. 2-16.
2
Appeal 2017-001056
Application 12/347,108
DISCUSSION
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. Final Act. 2—20; Ans. 3—21.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons
given in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue “it is difficult to see where in
O’Brien, a mapping exists to specific teachings of O’Brien to the claimed
‘storing the best practices template with mapped components and
dependencies as a high availability policy for the selected application.”
App. Br. 8. “At best, a mapping exists of storing a database with mapped
components and dependences as an availability policy for a computing
system.” Id.
At the outset, the Examiner notes that the Specification is devoid of a
definition for the terms “template” and “applications. Ans. 18.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that O’Brien’s “managed object instance”
is “a ‘selected application’ in that a particular (selected) managed object
instance is created via, e.g., a management web/user interface, for each
resource under management.” Ans. 18—19 (citing O’Brien col. 5,11. 50—55,
col. 13,11. 33—42, col. 16,11. 48—53, col. 23,11. 52—59). The Examiner also
finds O’Brien’s “managed object class” reasonably teaches “a ‘template’
given that the managed object classes, via dependency information inherited
from the root object class (O’Brien: col. 24, lines 28—34 and O’Brien: col. 3,
lines 18—23), act as templates from which their managed objects are created
(O’Brien: col. 14, lines 12 and 13).” Ans. 19. We agree with the Examiner
for the reasons provided in the Answer. Ans. 18—19.
3
Appeal 2017-001056
Application 12/347,108
Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that O’Brien’s “managed object
class is hardly related to any practices let alone the claimed ‘best practices,”’
and that “the managed object class is not stored as a high availability policy
as claimed by Appellants.” Reply Br. 5. Appellants have not shown good
cause for presenting arguments for the first time in the Reply Brief as to
these other limitations in claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Nonetheless, we
disagree with Appellants’ arguments for the reasons given in our prior
decision. Dec. 8.
Appellants also argue the Examiner neglected in the Final Action to
address their argument
that the cited portion of Poirot pertained only to the updating of
a dynamic table to account for different location information
changes such as hardware changes and lacked any specific
teaching to the inclusion in the stored high availability policy of
a network address and file system mount point to be used when
deploying the high availability policy.
App. Br. 9.
The Examiner finds Poirot teaches “how a node location server is
started/initialized” using the Node Location Table (NLT), that
startup/initialization is a reasonable interpretation of “deploying,” and that
the NLT includes an internet protocol (IP) address and a path name of a root
file system to mount. Ans. 20 (citing Poirot paras. 68—69, 100, 106, 110-11,
Fig. 6). We agree with the Examiner for the reasons provided in the
Answer. Ans. 20. To the extent Appellants’ arguments regarding Poirot are
directed to deploying a “high availability policy,” the Examiner relies on
O’Brien for teaching the high availability policy. See Final Act. 3^4.
4
Appeal 2017-001056
Application 12/347,108
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O’Brien and Poirot. Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellants argue claims 1—12 as a group. App. Br. 4—10.
Accordingly, claims 2—12 fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5