Ex Parte Allen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

11799111 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111799, 111 0413012007
106095 7590 06/01/2016
Baker Botts LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donald M. Allen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
063170.9311 4256
EXAMINER
GREENE, JOSEPH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD M. ALLEN, MARK W. EMEIS,
JAMES D. ENGQUIST, JERRY R. JACKSON, and
RANDALL L. MURRISH
Appeal2015-001142
Application 11/799, 111 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Examiner's Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-17, 19-23, 25-28, 30, 32--44, and 46-48.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is CA, Inc. Br. 2.
2 Claims 5, 18, 24, 29, 31, and 45 have been cancelled.
Appeal2015-001142
Application 11/799, 111
Invention
The claims are directed to the management of a distributed computing
system using a hierarchy of autonomic managers which monitor and analyze
the distributed computing system and the system's resources. Spec. i-fi-14--7.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at an autonomic management system manager
(AMSM), monitoring information of a first autonomic
management system (AMS), the first AMS managing at
least one distributed computing system, the at least one
distributed computing system comprising a plurality of
application nodes interconnected via a communications network,
the AMS providing autonomic control of the application nodes;
receiving, at the 1A'.l.~Y1Sr\1, monitoring information of the at
least one distributed computing system;
determining, by the AMSM, predicted behavior of the first
AMS when managing the at least one distributed computing
system based on the monitoring information of the at least one
distributed computing system and the monitoring information of
the first AMS, the predicted behavior comprising the first AMS
malfunctioning due to an insufficiency of a resource used by the
first AMS; and
preventing the predicted behavior of the first AMS by
autonomically modifying, with the AMSM, a configuration of
the first AMS, the modified configuration of the first AMS
modifying the management of the at least one distributed
computing system.
2
Appeal2015-001142
Application 11/799, 111
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Alex
Awada
Crosby
White
F ellenstein
US 2005/0091352 Al
US 2005/0268065 A 1
US 2007 /0005753 Al
US 2007 /0033273 Al
US 7,533,170 B2
REJECTIONS3
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Apr. 28, 2005
Dec. 1, 2005
Jan.4,2007
Feb. 8,2007
May 12, 2009
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 16, 19-22, 25-27, 30, 32-36, 42, 43, 46, and 47
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alex,
Fellenstein, and Awada. Non-Final Act. 2-7.
Claims 4, 11-13, 17, 23, 28, 37-39, 44, and 48 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alex, Fellenstein, Awada, and
White. Id. at 7-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' argument that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 2-12 (mailed Dec. 5, 2013)) and the
findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 12-14
(mailed Aug. 29, 2014)). We concur with the conclusions reached by the
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 14,
15, 40, and 41. Ans. 10-11.
3
Appeal2015-001142
Application 11/799, 111
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent claims 1, 20, and 25
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Alex, Fellenstein, and Awada teaches or suggests "determining, by the
AMSM, predicted behavior of the first AMS ... based on the monitoring
information of the at least one distributed computing system and the
monitoring information of the first AMS," as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claims 20 and 25. Br. 12-16. Specifically, Appellants argue that
because Awada "predict[ s] a failure of a resource based on information
about only that resource itself," the combination "would merely yield a
system where only information about a particular resource is used to predict
a problem with that resource"-that is, failure prediction does not consider
information about the distributed computing system. Id. at 14--16.
We are not persuaded. Appellants' arguments attack the references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references, i.e.,
Alex, F ellenstein, and Awada. Here, the Examiner finds Alex teaches a
cluster resource manager which manages a computing cluster (i.e., a
distributed computing system) based on monitored cluster resources. Non-
Final Act. 2-3 (citing Alex i-fi-19, 35, 43). Alex indicates its cluster resource
manager "monitors each resource of the system" to determine the state of the
computing cluster for management of the cluster. See Alex i1 50; Fig. 6.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, F ellenstein teaches a distributed
computing system having an autonomic coordination controller which
manages autonomic managers, i.e., "a manager that manages other
4
Appeal2015-001142
Application 11/799, 111
autonomic managers." Ans. 13 (citing Fellenstein 9:33--41). The Examiner
combines Alex and Fellenstein resulting in a system in which Alex's cluster
resource manager (i.e., an AMSM) manages autonomic managers (i.e.,
AMSs), as taught by Fellenstein. Ans. 13; Non-Final Act. 3. Additionally,
the Examiner finds, and we agree, Awada teaches prediction of resource
failures. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Awada i-f 47); Ans. 13. The Examiner
further combines Alex, Fellenstein, and Awada resulting in a system which
manages a computing cluster by predicting resource failures, with which we
agree. Non-Final Act. 4.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Alex, Fellenstein, and Awada teaches or suggests
"determining, by the AMSM, predicted behavior of the first AMS ... based
on the monitoring information of the at least one distributed computing
system and the monitoring information of the first AMS," as recited in claim
1 and similarly recited in claims 20 and 25.
Appellants also contend the combination of Alex, F ellenstein, and
Awada is improper because the Examiner "us[ es] Appellants' claims as a
blueprint and thus employ[ s] impermissible hindsight." Br. 16-17 (citation
omitted).
The Examiner combines Alex and F ellenstein to reduce overhead by
decentralizing the system; i.e., rather than having a single manager
controlling every cluster resource, multiple managed managers control
portions of the cluster resources. Non-Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner further
combines Alex, F ellenstein, and Awada to predict potential system end
states in order to preempt undesirable system end states. Id. at 4. We
determine the Examiner's reasons for combining Alex, Fellenstein, and
5
Appeal2015-001142
Application 11/799, 111
Awada combination are supported by rational underpinning, i.e., to
distribute management duties to multiple managers and to improve the
computing cluster's operation by avoiding undesirable system end states. Id.
Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade
us the stated rationale employs impermissible hindsight. Instead, we find the
collective teachings of Alex, Fellenstein, and Awada would have suggested
the combination to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention.
Therefore, we are not persuaded there was error.
Dependent claims 11, 3 7, and 48
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Alex teaches or
suggests "comparing, with the AMSM, the monitoring information of the at
least one distributed computing system, the monitoring information of the
first AMS, and at least one parameter of the first AMS," as recited in claim
11 and similarly recited in claims 37 and 48. Br. 17-18. Specifically,
Appellants argue Alex "fails to disclose any sort of 'comparing' multiple
types of information." Id. at 18.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds Alex manages a
computing cluster by comparing monitored information about computing
cluster resources with a system cluster state. Non-Final Act. 8 (citing Alex
i-f 9); see Alex i-f 50, Fig. 6. As discussed supra, the Examiner's combination
of Alex, F ellenstein, and Awada manages the computing cluster based on
monitored AMS information. See Ans. 13; see also Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellants arguments do not persuade us it would have been uniquely
challenging or beyond the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan to additionally
compare monitored AMS information and parameters to manage Alex's
6
Appeal2015-001142
Application 11/799, 111
computing cluster. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appellants also contend White does not teach or suggest "in response
to comparing the monitoring information of the at least one distributed
computing system, the monitoring information of the first AMS, and at least
one parameter of the first AMS ... autonomically reducing ... log level
settings," as recited in claim 11 and similarly in claims 37 and 48. Br. 18.
Specifically, Appellants argue "log level settings" are not reduced "in
response to comparing" monitoring information. Id.
Appellants' arguments attack White individually when the Examiner's
rejection is based on the combination of Alex, Fellenstein, Awada, and
White. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Alex teaches taking remedial
action upon the determination that its computing cluster is not at a desired
state. Ans. 14; see Alex Fig. 6. The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
White teaches that the frequency of event logging (i.e., a log level setting)
can be adjusted. Ans. 14 (citing White i-fi-f 123, 277). In particular, White
teaches the frequency of host information, e.g., logged events, is specified.
White i-fi-f 123, 277. The Examiner combines Alex, Fellenstein, Awada, and
White resulting in a system which adjusts logging frequency in response to
determining Alex's system is in an undesirable state, with which we agree.
Ans. 14; Non-Final Act. 9.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the
combination of Alex, F ellenstein, Awada, and White teaches or suggests "in
response to comparing the monitoring information of the at least one
distributed computing system, the monitoring information of the first AMS,
7
Appeal2015-001142
Application 11/799, 111
and at least one parameter of the first AMS ... autonomically reducing ...
log level settings," as recited in claim 11 and similarly in claims 37 and 48.
Remaining claims 2--4, 6--10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21-23, 26--28, 30,
32-36, 38, 39, 42--44, 46, and 47
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to dependent claims 2--4, 6-10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19,
21-23, 26-28, 30, 32-36, 38, 39, 42--44, 46, and 47. See Br. 12-17. For the
reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-13, 16, 17,
19-23, 25-28, 30, 32-39, 42--44, and 46--48.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED
8