BMC SOFTWARE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2020

13842252 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 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.
13/842,252 03/15/2013 Cedric Young 0081-308001/13-007-US 3504
93236 7590 04/13/2020
Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP
c/o CPA Global
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
TSAI, JAMES T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2020 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):
docketing@brakehughes.com
uspto@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CEDRIC YOUNG, JEK-SUN WONG,
ARTEMIOS TAVOULARIS, STEVE WONG, SUN-CHUN CHU, and
THOMAS L. ADRIAN
Appeal 2019-001061
Application 13/842,252
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE JOSEPH L. DIXON, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
BMC Software, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001061
Application 13/842,252
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to the presentation of data on user-interfaces
of databases and computing systems. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
including instructions executable by the at least one processor,
the instructions configured to implement,
a user-interface of an application for managing a
computer system,
the user-interface configured to present a workflow of a
service ticket regarding a problem in the computer system,
the workflow presentation including information about
one or more events occurring in one or more management
spaces of the computer system and about relationships between
the events,
the workflow presentation also including information that
displays a time map of events occurring in a first management
space along a first time line and displays a time map of events
occurring in a second management space along a second time
line, and
the workflow presentation further including controls for
entering a relationship between a first event occurring in the
first management space along the first time line and a second
event occurring in the second management space along the
second time line.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Cogger et al. US 6,859,783 B2 Feb. 22, 2005
Nastacio US 2007/0266142 A1 Nov. 15, 2007
Grabarnik et al. US 2010/0005384 A1 Jan. 7, 2010
Elias US 2014/0157170 A1 Jun. 5, 2014

Appeal 2019-001061
Application 13/842,252
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–7, 10, 14–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grabarnik in view of Elias in
further view of Nastacio.2
Claims 8, 9, 11–13, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Grabarnik in view of Elias in view of
Nastacio in further view of Cogger.
OPINION
I. Claims 1, 14, and 19
Appellant argues Claims 1, 14, and 19 as a group. We select Claim 1
to represent the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant characterizes Claim 1 as requiring orthogonal management
spaces that “cover different aspects of the IT infrastructure” such that
“different types of events occur in each of the different orthogonal
management spaces.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant elaborates that Claim 1
requires for those “different types of events” to be displayed on
“corresponding time lines” where the timelines “need not have common
events.” Reply Br. 4.
In this light, Appellant argues “Nastacio’s single hierarchy of nodes
throughout the network of components forming the enterprise computing
environment corresponds to at most a single management space.” Appeal
Br. 15. Appellant further argues, “Nastacio does not relate to events from
different management spaces” and does not display or correlate “different
events occurring in two different management spaces.” Appeal Br. 15

2 We note that the introductory listing of the claims does not include claims
3 and 17, but the body of the rejection specifically discusses these claims.
Appeal 2019-001061
Application 13/842,252
4
(emphasis omitted). Appellant further argues that even though Nastacio’s
events are displayed on parallel timelines, the events are not categorized “by
management spaces” and are not correlated “across time lines.” Reply Br. 5.
Moreover, Appellant argues that Nastacio performs a well-known3 “time
series analysis,” and, thus, the events of the timelines correspond to just a
“single management space.” Reply Br. 5, 6.
On the other hand, the Examiner maintains that Nastacio’s system
monitors different “management spaces.” Ans. 18. Citing paragraphs 28
and 43 of Appellant’s Specification and a dictionary definition of “space,”
the Examiner finds “management space” means “a logical collection of
items that may be classified together.” Ans. 18, 19. The Examiner further
maintains that Claim 1 does not require “the sources of the events” to be
different. Ans. 20. In this light, the Examiner maintains that Nastacio’s
disclosure of events having different classifications corresponds to the
Examiner’s interpretation of different management spaces, as claimed. Ans.
19.
We note claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking
into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations . . .
limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

3 In support of Appellant’s argument, Appellant cites a website (math
works.com/help/econ/rolling-window-estimation-of-state-space-
models.html) that describes rolling-window analyses in time-series models.
(Reply Br. 9–12, App’x.)
Appeal 2019-001061
Application 13/842,252
5
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “events occurring in a first management space”
and “events occurring in a second management space” does not specifically
require for the types and/or kinds of events in the first management space to
be “different” from the types and/or kinds of events occurring in the second
management space. We also find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive
because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “first management space”
and “second management space” includes those spaces occurring in a
hierarchy of a single computer system. We additionally find Appellant’s
argument unpersuasive because the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“first time line” and “second time line” does not preclude those timelines
from corresponding to different time segments along a timeline
encompassing those segments. Furthermore, Appellant does not
persuasively identify error in the Examiner’s interpretation of “management
space” to mean “a logical collection of items that may be classified
together.” Ans. 20.
Regardless of the general contentions and imputed intended meanings
articulated by Appellant in the Briefs, we are bound by the controlling
guidance of our reviewing court: “[i]t is the claims that measure the
invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107,
1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted); In re Hiniker Co., 150
F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citations omitted) (“[T]he name of the
game is the claim.”) (emphasis added). “Though understanding the claim
language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written
description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not
a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d
870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “We have cautioned against reading limitations
Appeal 2019-001061
Application 13/842,252
6
into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification,
even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the
specification.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
Appellant’s Specification provides illustrations of different
management spaces and examples of the types and/or kinds of events
pertaining to those management spaces. Spec. ¶ 28. Appellant’s disclosure
also provides examples of two separate timelines, each having events that
occur on the same day. Spec. ¶ 42; Fig. 9. However, we find that Claim 1
does not require for the management spaces to be of a specific type and does
not require the events in the first management space to be of a different type
and/or kind from the events in the second management space. Likewise, we
find that Claim 1 also does not require the timelines to each have events that
occur on the same day. Furthermore, we cannot import these features from
the disclosure into the claims.
Nastacio discloses a computer system that generates events pertaining
to the computer system. Nastacio ¶ 19. According to Nastacio, the events
are “classified according to a combination of event attributes.” Id.
Thereafter, the events are displayed in “a time based rolling window along
with other events of similar and different classifications.” Id. As a result,
Nastacio states, “consequential relationships between events of different
classifications can be determined.” Id. These relationships are displayed so
a viewer than can see “the causal effect of an event of one type of
classification upon events of a different type of classification.” Nastacio
¶ 21. Further, “the causal relationship can be determined across multiple
different event sources.” Nastacio ¶ 22. The visual representation of the
events is shown in Figure 2, which shows events of similar attributes
Appeal 2019-001061
Application 13/842,252
7
displayed one way in several timelines and events of different attributes
displayed another way in several timelines. Nastacio ¶ 24. Using the
visualization, “a causal relationship between the earlier occurring one of the
multiple event instances . . . of different attribute sets can be identified.”
Nastacio ¶ 25.
Because the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 1 does not
require specific types of management spaces, different types and/or kinds of
events within each management space, and for each of the timelines to have
events that occur on a same day, we find that Nastacio’s differently
classified events that span across different timelines teaches or suggests the
claimed events occurring in a first management space along a first time line
and events occurring in a second management space along a second time
line. We further find that Nastacio indeed teaches and suggests identifying a
relationship between at least one event of the first and second management
spaces. Therefore, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or conclusion of obviousness, and we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of Claims 1, 14, and 19.
II. Claims 2–13, 15–18, and 20
Appellant does not present separate arguments for patentability of
dependent Claims 2–13, 15–18, and 20. Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 7.
Instead, Appellant requests withdrawal of the obviousness rejection on the
same basis as Appellant’s arguments for independent Claims 1, 14, and 19,
which are addressed in the previous section. Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 7.
Therefore, because Appellant does not separately argue for Claims 2–13,
15–18, and 20 on any basis besides their respective dependencies from
independent Claims 1, 14, and 19, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
Claims 2–13, 15–18, and 20 for the same the reasoning.
Appeal 2019-001061
Application 13/842,252
8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 10, 14–
17, 19, 20
103(a) Grabarnik,
Elias, Nastacio
1–7, 10, 14–
17, 19, 20

8, 9, 11–13,
18
103(a) Grabarnik,
Elias,
Nastacio,
Cogger
8, 9, 11–13,
18

Overall
Outcome
1–20

AFFIRMED