Ex Parte Ashok et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

13356297 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/356,297
58139 7590
IBM CORP, (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
01/23/2012
08/17/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rohith K. Ashok
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.
RSW920l20005US1 4765
EXAMINER
LY,TOANC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2887
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROHITH K. ASHOK, WEIL. CHAN,
HUGHE. HOCKETT, and SHU C. WAN
Appeal2014-008907
Application 13/356,297
Technology Center 2800
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 8-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-008907
Application 13/356,297
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "acquiring information (e.g.,
utilization, temperature, errors, traffic, current users, health status, name,
description) dynamically regarding a hardware component (e.g., server in a
rack of computing hardware) in the cloud computing system while on the
floor of the data center" in a cloud computing environment (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Independent claim 8, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
8. A computer program product embodied in a non-
transitory computer readable storage medium for managing
hardware components in a cloud computing environment, the
computer program product comprising the programming
instructions for:
capturing an image of a bar code placed on a rack
containing computer hardware of said cloud computing
environment, wherein said image of said bar code is associated
with an identifier that references an information resource of a
management software configured to manage said computer
hardware;
accessing said information resource of said management
software using said identifier;
downloading images of components of said rack from
said management software, wherein said images of said
components of said rack comprise unique identifiers;
capturing an image of a component in said rack a user is
currently viewing;
identifying said component by matching said image of
said component with one of said downloaded images of said
components of said rack;
transmitting a request for information regarding said
identified component to said management software, wherein
said request comprises a unique identifier associated with said
identified component;
receiving information regarding said identified
component; and
2
Appeal2014-008907
Application 13/356,297
displaying said received information regarding said
identified component that overlays a displayed image of said
component.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 10-15, and 17-21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rider (US 2011/0218730 Al) and
Stratmann (US 2011/0096148 Al).
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Rider, Stratmann, and Hara (US 5,726,435)
ANALYSIS
Initially we note, as Appellant states, this application is related to
serial number 13/858,723 which has substantially similar claim limitations
(App. Br. 1). Claim 8 of the present application differs from claim 1 of the
related application only in the preamble. The preamble of claim 1 in the
related application recites, "A method for managing hardware components
in a cloud computing environment, the method, comprising," rather than a
"computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable
storage medium" as recited in claim 8 of the present application. The
limitations in the body of both claims are nearly identical (the displaying
step in the present application does not recite "by a processor").
Upon careful review of the Appeal Brief, the arguments are
substantially the same, if not exactly the same, as those provided in related
application 13/858,723.
Particularly, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Rider and Stratmann teaches or suggests an "image of said
3
Appeal2014-008907
Application 13/356,297
bar code is associated with an identifier that references an information
resource of a management software configured to manage said computer
hardware," "downloading images of components ... said images ...
comprise unique identifiers," and "identifying said component by matching
said image of said component with one of said downloaded images of said
components," as claimed (App. Br. 5-25).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Non-
Final Act. 3-7; Ans. 2-7). Particularly, we agree with the Examiner finding
Rider discloses an "identifier" as Appellants' claim is broad and Appellants'
reliance on the identifier being a URL is merely exemplary (Ans. 3--4; App.
Br. 7-9; Spec. i-f 63 "identifier (e.g., URL)").
Cumulative to the Examiner's findings, Appellants' own Specification
admits all the claimed steps were known in the art except for automating the
step of "typing the URL associated with the management software in a web
browser of a device being carried by the user" (Spec. i-f 4). Appellants'
invention merely allows a URL, for example, to automatically be associated
with a piece of hardware, rather than typing the URL, thus automating a
manual process. Providing an automatic way to replace a manual activity,
which accomplishes the same result, is not sufficient to distinguish over the
prior art. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958); Leapfrog Enter.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("Applying
modem electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in
recent years."). An improved product in the art is obvious if that "product
[is] not [one] of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense," and "is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results"
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 421 (2007). In the instant
4
Appeal2014-008907
Application 13/356,297
application, replacing the admitted prior art process of manually typing the
identifier that references an information resource for hardware with
capturing an image of a bar code referencing an information resource for the
hardware as taught by Rider does no more than yield the predictable result of
capturing a bar code image that is associated with an identifier referencing
an information resource.
In light of the broad terms recited in the claims and the arguments
presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their claimed
invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Thus, we are not
persuaded the Examiner's reading of the claims on the cited combination of
references is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the
Specification and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
8, and claims 10-14 and 17-21 argued therewith and for substantially the
same reasons (App. Br. 25).
With respect to claims 13 and 20, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings as our own (Non-Final Act. 7). Appellants merely state
what Rider discloses, what the claim recites, and concludes Rider does not
teach or suggest the limitations of claims 13 and 20 (App. Br. 25-28).
Further, Appellants assert claims 13 and 20 are dependent upon allowable
claims 12 and 19, which we find otherwise (see above).
With respect to claims 14 and 21, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings as our own (Non-Final Act. 8, 11). Appellants are
requiring the exact language of the claim be found in the cited portions of
Rider (App. Br. 28-30). However, there is no ipsissimis verbis test. Rather,
the test is what an ordinarily skilled artisan would know and understand. In
this instance, we find Rider sufficiently indicates an ordinarily skilled artisan
5
Appeal2014-008907
Application 13/356,297
would know that programming instructions could include receiving guided
instructions to perform an action, as claimed.
With respect to claims 9 and 16, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings (Non-Final Act. 1 ). Appellants merely assert these
claims are allowable for the same reasons as claims 8 and 15, which we find
otherwise (App. Br. 31 ).
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 8-21.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-21 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
6