Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2018

14066150 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/066,150 10/29/2013
76933 7590 03/27/2018
IBM (END-KLS)
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
301 Congress Avenue
Suite 1350
AUSTIN, TX 78701
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ERIC M. ANDERSON
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.
END920130004US 1 4736
EXAMINER
CELANI, NICHOLAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 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):
office@klspatents.com
kate@klspatents.com
hanna@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC M. ANDERSON,
CHRISTOPHER J. DAWSON,
RAJESH RADHAKRISHNAN, and CAROLS. WALTON
Appeal2017-009013
Application 14/066,150 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-20, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to "real-time, distributed administration of
information describing dependency relationships among configuration items
of a data center." Spec. p. 1, 11. 11-12.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009013
Application 14/066, 150
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method of distributed administration of information
describing dependency relationships among configuration items
of a data center, each configuration item of the data center
associated with a non-centralized independent agent, the
non-centralized independent agents coupled to one another for
data communications, each non-centralized independent agent
maintaining a record of dependencies amongst the configuration
item associated with the non-centralized independent agent and
other configuration items of the data center, the method
compnsmg:
detecting, by a non-centralized independent agent
associated with only one particular configuration item, a change
in the configuration item's dependency, including updating a
record of dependencies for the particular configuration item, the
non-centralized independent agent executed by the configuration
item or executed by another module of automated computing
machinery and in data communications with the configuration
item;
providing, by the non-centralized independent agent
associated with the particular configuration item, information
describing the change in the particular configuration item's
dependency to all other non-centralized independent agents
associated with configuration items that are in a dependency
relationship with the particular configuration item, publishing
through a [p ]ublish/subscribe data communications protocol
carried out by an enterprise service bus ('ESB') a message that
includes the information describing the change, the non-
centralized independent agents coupled to one another for data
communications via the [p ]ublish/subscribe data
communications protocol, each independent agent subscribing to
messages from other non-centralized independent agents by
filtering only messages with information associated with
configuration items in a dependency relationship with the
configuration item associated with the non-centralized
independent agent, whereby each non-centralized independent
2
Appeal2017-009013
Application 14/066, 150
agent receives on the ESB bus only messages describing changes
in dependency to configuration items in a dependency
relationship with each non-centralized independent agent; and
for each of the other non-centralized independent agents
associated with configuration items that are in a dependency
relationship with the particular configuration item:
updating, by the non-centralized independent agent, the
record of dependences for the configuration item associated with
the non-centralized independent agent.
Rejections2' 3
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination ofBiazetti (US 2013/0019276
Al, Jan. 17, 2013), Amini (US 2007/0280381 Al, Dec. 6, 2007), and Zhou
(US 6,014,719, Jan. 11, 2000). Final Act. 4--15.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Biazetti, Amini, Zhou, and
Conner (US 2007/0011126 Al, Jan. 11, 2007). Final Act. 15-18.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Biazetti, Amini, Zhou, and Faihe
(US 2008/0263084 Al, Oct. 23, 2008). Final Act. 18-19.
2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Ans. 2.
3 The Examiner asserts in the Remarks that additional references anticipate
and/or render obvious a distributed CMDB system. Ans. 21-22. Because
the assertions appear only in the Remarks and are not in the typical format of
a rejection, for purposes of this appeal, we do not address these assertions as
outstanding rejections of the claims.
3
Appeal2017-009013
Application 14/066, 150
ANALYSIS 4
Appellants argue Biazetti does not disclose the claimed "independent
agent" because "an independent agent is a module that detects and publishes
dependencies for a single configuration item" and "Biazetti's CMDB is a
central repository that stores all the attributes and dependencies for all the
configuration items of a system." App. Br. 16-18. Similarly, Appellants
argue Biazetti does not disclose detecting for only one particular
configuration item, a change in the configuration item's dependency. Id. at
18-21. Appellants also argue "Biazetti expressly teaches directly away from
an independent agent's detecting for only one particular configuration item,
a change in the configuration item's dependency." App. Br. 19-20 (italics in
original; bold and underlining omitted) (citing Biazetti i-f 58); see also Reply
Br. 24 ("Biazetti mentions an agent program to highlight the benefit of his
disclosure not requiring an agent program .... Because Biazetti is expressly
teaching the benefits of not using an agent program, Biazetti is teaching
away from using an agent program.").
We are not persuaded of error. We agree with the Examiner that
Biazetti's disclosure of storing attributes and dependencies for more than
4 Appellants argue the different rejections of claim 1 under separate headings
but only present arguments with respect to claim 1 in each case. App. Br.
16-23. Because our analysis of the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over the
combination of Biazetti, Amini, and Zhou is dispositive, we do not reach the
additional rejections of the independent claims and, except for our ultimate
decision, we do not discuss the remaining claims further. See In re Gleave,
560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching other rejections after
upholding an anticipation rejection); see also Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742
F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (approving ITC's determination based on a
single dispositive issue, and not reaching other issues not decided by the
lower tribunal).
4
Appeal2017-009013
Application 14/066, 150
one configuration item and detecting a change in many configuration items'
dependencies renders obvious doing so for only one configuration item. See
Final Act. 5-6; see Biazetti i-fi-149, 52-54. The mere existence of differences
between the prior art and the claim does not establish non-obviousness. See
Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question
is "whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in
question is a [difference] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter
unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art." Dann, 425 U.S. at 228
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made
clear that when considering obviousness, "the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Here, it is clear that Biazetti does not preclude, for example, a simple
system having only one configuration item for which the CMDB performs
the functions exactly as claimed. See Biazetti i-fi-149, 52-54. Moreover, to
whatever extent Appellants argue Biazetti does not disclose an "independent
agent" because an independent agent must be incapable of storing and
updating attributes and dependencies for more than one configuration item
(App. Br. 15-18), we do not find the label "independent" to require such a
narrow interpretation.
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Biazetti
teaches away. Biazetti teaches an additional way or an alternative way
(i-f 58), but teaching multiple ways or different ways is not a "teaching
away." A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
5
Appeal2017-009013
Application 14/066, 150
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants have not persuasively established that
Biazetti' s describing the benefits of an alternative way meets the threshold
requirements to constitute a "teaching away."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-20.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6