Ex Parte Bailey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2014

11421780 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014)

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.
11/421,780 06/02/2006 John H. Bailey YOR920060438US1 3099
59144 7590 11/03/2014
CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP
1100 17th STREET, NW
SUITE 401
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
EXAMINER
NEURAUTER, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2615
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2014 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 JOHN H. BAILEY, WALTER CANIS, KENNETH DAVID
CHRISTIANCE, SHANG QING GUO, JOSEPH L. HELLERSTEIN,
PATRICK B. HEYWOOD, JONATHAN LENCHNER, RAJAN
RAVIRAJAN, and MICHAEL JOHN SPISAK
____________

Appeal 2012-007680
Application 11/421,7801
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19–24. Appeal
Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corp. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-007680
Application 11/421,780

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 13, 16, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer implemented integrated administration
environment (IAE), wherein the IAE comprises:
one underlying resource model to enable server
administrator interaction with a plurality of services and access
to functionality of a plurality of tools via one tool, wherein the
interaction with the services is enabled to occur in at least one
perspective via the one tool,
the perspective comprising an information management
perspective illustrating data across multiple resources residing
on servers, the servers connected to a non-transitory storage
device, the information management perspective including:
a problem management view showing problem
records across the servers, and
a system vitals view showing consumption of
system resources across the servers.
Appeal Br. 23.
Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Sylor US 7,490,145 B2 Feb. 10, 2009
McNally US 6,259,448 B1 July 10, 2001
Du US 6,308,163 B1 Oct. 23, 2001
Ans. 4.
Appeal 2012-007680
Application 11/421,780

3
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19–21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McNally in view of Sylor.
Claims 7 and 22–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McNally and Sylor in further view of Du.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19–21
Claim 1
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in determining that the Sylor
reference teaches “a system vitals view showing consumption of system
resources across the servers,” as required by independent claim 1. Appeal
Br. 7. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
As the Examiner notes, Sylor discloses a system for monitoring
characteristics of network elements, such as servers. Ans. 12, citing Sylor
1:11–20. Sylor teaches generating an alarm if, e.g., a particular network
element is being over utilized, an element is running out of a key resource,
or the workload of an element is unusual. Ans. 13–14, citing Sylor 8:15-35,
9:17-30. Figure 7 of Sylor—which the Examiner finds to be a system vitals
view of the type required by claim 1—depicts an event viewer that displays
alarm information for multiple network elements. Sylor, Fig. 7.
Appellants argue that Figure 7 of Sylor depicts alarms that are
generated when a variable is over a threshold, and not consumption of
system resources across servers. Appeal Br. 9. This argument is not
persuasive because the alarm events depicted in Figure 7 contain
information about the consumption of system resources. For example, one
alarm depicted in Figure 7 indicates that a network element exceeded a
Appeal 2012-007680
Application 11/421,780

4
utilization threshold for a particular length of time, and another alarm
indicates that a different network element exceeded a bandwidth threshold
for a different length of time. Sylor, Fig. 7. We also note that Appellants
elected not to file a reply brief in order to respond to the findings set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in finding that Sylor teaches “a system vitals view showing consumption of
system resources across the servers,” as required by claim 1. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claims 13 and 16
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in finding that the McNally
reference teaches a “resource model to enable . . . access to the functionality
of a plurality of tools via one tool,” as required by independent claims 13
and 16. Appeal Br. 11–14. In particular, Appellants assert that a server
administrator cannot use the resource model of McNally to access the
functionality of machines. Id. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
In the Answer, the Examiner notes that McNally discloses a
deployment task window that can be used to configure and deploy a resource
model to a set of machines. Ans. 16–17, citing McNally 2:41–65. The
deployment of a resource model typically includes instantiating resource
model mapping rules at each machine in the set of machines. Id. McNally
further teaches that the mapping rules may be instantiated by “us[ing] the
runtime environment at each receiving node.” Id. The Examiner finds that
the runtime environment at each receiving node is a functionality of the
machine, and that McNally therefore discloses enabling access to the
Appeal 2012-007680
Application 11/421,780

5
functionality of a plurality of tools (i.e., the machines/receiving nodes) via
one tool (i.e., the deployment task window). Id.
Appellants argue that the McNally deployment task window does not
allow access to the functionality of the machines, and that it is the resource
models that actually control the functionality of the machines. Appeal Br.
12. This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the
Examiner’s finding that the runtime environments of the machines are
functionalities of the machines. Appellants also elected not to file a reply
brief in order to respond to the findings set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in finding that McNally teaches a “resource model to enable . . . access to
the functionality of a plurality of tools via one tool,” as required by
independent claims 13 and 16. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 13.
Claim 19
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in determining that the prior
art of record teaches “interacting with all the plurality of services via the
underlying resource model of the IAE using one tool,” as required by
independent claim 19. Appeal Br. 14. In the Answer, the Examiner finds
that column 2, lines 41–65 of McNally teach a single graphical user interface
(GUI) from which the administrator can interact with a plurality of machines
at one time in the manner required by claim 19. Ans. 17. As discussed
above, these portions of McNally teach a deployment task window that can
be used to deploy a resource model by instantiating mapping rules using the
runtime environments at each of a plurality of receiving nodes. See
McNally, 2:41–65.
Appeal 2012-007680
Application 11/421,780

6
Appellants do not offer any persuasive evidence or technical
reasoning that the deployment task window of McNally does not satisfy this
claim limitation. Appellants also elected not to file a reply brief in order to
respond to the findings set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in determining that McNally teaches “interacting with all of the plurality of
services via the underlying resource model of the IAE using one tool,” as
required by independent claim 19. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 19.
Claims 2, 14, 17, and 20
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that McNally
teaches “common base objects including events, problem, and change
events,” as required by dependent claims 2, 14, 17, and 20. Appeal Br. 15.
This argument is not persuasive.
In the Answer, the Examiner notes that McNally teaches that “events”
may be generated when a particular “state attribute” changes. Ans. 18,
citing McNally 6:62–67. McNally also discloses that state attributes can
relate to problems, such as bad blocks in a disk partition. McNally 6:43–47.
The Examiner finds that McNally teaches “state, problem, or event” events
of the type required by claims 2, 14, 17, and 20. Ans. 19.
Appellants fail to set forth any persuasive evidence or technical
reasoning that the events of McNally are not “events, problem, and change
events” of the type required by dependent claims 2, 14, 17, and 20.
Appellants also elected not to file a reply brief in order to respond to the
findings set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2012-007680
Application 11/421,780

7
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in determining that McNally teaches “common base objects including
events, problem, and change events,” as required by dependent claims 2, 14,
17, and 20. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 14, 17,
and 20.
Claim 9
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that McNally
teaches a resource management perspective that incorporates “hierarchical
views across multiple customer or in-house accounts,” as required by
dependent claim 9. Appeal Br. 16. This argument is persuasive.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that claim 5 of McNally, and two
parts of the McNally specification, teach a hierarchical view of the type
required by claim 9. Answer 19, citing McNally 2:22–55, 8:31–42, claim 5.
These portions of McNally disclose a graphical user interface, a hierarchy of
models, and the existence of icons for individual models. See id. But the
Examiner has not identified any teaching in McNally of a hierarchical view
of the models. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
Claim 10
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that McNally
teaches an “information management perspective [that] delivers cross-server
and cross-LPAR views for trouble-shooting, correlation, analysis, and
visualization,” as required by dependent claim 10. Appeal Br. 18. This
argument is persuasive.
The Examiner finds that column 8, lines 31–42 of McNally teach the
claimed information management perspective. Ans. 8. This portion of
Appeal 2012-007680
Application 11/421,780

8
McNally describes a web of composite models that depend on other models,
but does not teach cross-server and cross-LPAR (logical partition) views.
See id. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 11, and 21
Appellants do not make any separate substantive arguments regarding
the patentability of dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 11, and 21, all of which depend
from claim 1. Instead, Appellants rely on their arguments with respect to
claim 1. Appeal Br. 19. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons
discussed above. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6,
8, 11, and 21.

Rejection of Claims 7 and 22–24
Claim 7
Appellants do not make any separate substantive arguments regarding
the patentability of dependent claim 7, which depends from claim 1.
Instead, Appellants rely on their arguments with respect to claim 1. Appeal
Br. 19–20. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed
above. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Claim 22
Appellants do not make any separate substantive arguments regarding
the patentability of dependent claim 22, which depends from claim 13.
Instead, Appellants rely on their arguments with respect to claim 13. Appeal
Br. 20. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
Appeal 2012-007680
Application 11/421,780

9
Claim 23
Appellants do not make any separate substantive arguments regarding
the patentability of dependent claim 23, which depends from claim 16.
Instead, Appellants rely on their arguments with respect to claim 16. Appeal
Br. 21. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
Claim 24
Appellants do not make any separate substantive arguments regarding
the patentability of dependent claim 24, which depends from claim 19.
Instead, Appellants rely on their arguments with respect to claim 19. Appeal
Br. 21–22. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed
above. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.

DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19–24, and REVERSE the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10.
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-IN-PART