10677876 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2013)

Ex Parte Aikens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 2013

10677876 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2013)

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. 10/677,876 09/30/2003 Glenn C. Aikens RSW920030051US1 (095) 9683 46320 7590 11/15/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GLENN C. AIKENS, SHAWN A. CLYMER, and BRADFORD AUSTIN FISHER ____________ Appeal 2011-011238 Application 10/677,876 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011238 Application 10/677,876 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-151. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. The invention relates to the field of differentiated service, and more particularly to service level agreement (SLA) creation and use (Spec. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a composite, multi-tier service level agreement (SLA) data structure, the data structure comprising: a plurality of service offerings data objects having both internal use only service level objectives and external service level objectives; and a plurality of SLA data objects combined into single, composite SLA data structure, each of said plurality of SLA data objects corresponding to a specific one of said service offerings, said plurality of SLA data objects in said composite SLA data structure having hierarchical organization based upon dependencies between said service offerings. Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen (U.S. 2002/0147828 A1; pub. Oct. 10, 2002) in view of Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”) (paras. [0007]-[0008]). 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed January 21, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 13, 2011). Appeal 2011-011238 Application 10/677,876 3 Claims 4-9 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen alone or in view of Edward Wustenhoff, Service Level Agreement in the Data Center, 1-10 (Sun Professional Services, Sun BluePrints™ OnLine) (http://www.sun.com/blueprints) (Apr. 2002) We AFFIRM. ANALYSIS Nonstatutory Subject Matter Rejection of Claims 4-9 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that claims 4-9 do not recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (App. Br. 6-9). After carefully considering Appellants’ assertions, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales, as set forth on page 13-16 of the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain this rejection of claims 4-9. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-15 We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Chen and AAPA renders obvious claims 1-3, or that a combination of Chen and Wustenhoff renders obvious claims 4-15 (App. Br. 9-13). After carefully considering Appellants’ assertions, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales, as set forth on page 16-18 of the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain this rejection of claims 1-15. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 is AFFIRMED. Appeal 2011-011238 Application 10/677,876 4 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh