Ex Parte Barton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2016

13448741 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/448,741 04/17/2012 Lukas Barton
56436 7590 07/28/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82914730 9313
EXAMINER
LIN, JSING FORNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUKAS BARTON, VLADIMIR DUBSKY,
and PAVEL ZAVORA
Appeal2015-003793
Application 13/448,741
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-003793
Application 13/448,741
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1---6, 8, 9, and 11-22, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The application relates to "[a] repository [that] stores a contract
between a service consumer and a service provider that provides a service,
the contract specifying a service-level objective associated with a service to
be applied for the service consumer." (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
storing, in a repository, a contract between a service consumer
and a service provider that provides a service, the contract spec-
ifying a service=level objective associated \'l1ith the ser\rice to be
applied for the service consumer, the contract being associated
with the service during a first stage of a lifecycle of the service;
configuring an enforcement device according to the contract,
where the configuring causes the enforcement device to perform
enforcement of the service-level objective in a connection be-
tween the service consumer and the service provider, the connec-
tion allowing the service consumer to access the service, in a sec-
ond, different stage of the lifecycle of the service, in response to
the enforcement device confirming that the service consumer is
associated with the contract; and
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest. (See App. Br. 1.)
2
Appeal2015-003793
Application 13/448,741
storing, in the repository, information that enables the service
consumer to access the service by looking up the service in the
repository using an identifier of the contract.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hughes
Mannava et al.
Gupta et al.
US 5,982,893 Nov. 9, 1999
US 2010/0049628 Al Feb. 25, 2010
US 7,757,268 B2 July 13, 2010
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-5 and 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mannava and Hughes. (See Final Act. 4--16.)
2. Claims 6, 8, 9, and 21-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mannava; Hughes; and Gupta. (See Final Act.
16-19.)
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that the rejections were improper for the following
reasons:
1. The combination does not "perform lookup of the service using
an identifier of the contract," as recited in independent claim 16 and as
similarly required in claims 1 and 17. (See App. Br. 6-8, 10-11.)
2. The combination does not "receive, by the enforcement device,
the identifier of the contract from the service consumer" and "determine, by
the enforcement device, whether the identifier of the contract is valid," as
3
Appeal2015-003793
Application 13/448,741
recited in claims 14 and 15, and as similarly required in claims 2 and 19.
(See App. Br. 8-9, 11.)
ANALYSIS
Regarding Appellants' first argument, the Examiner made the
following finding:
The 'contract' defines the service agreement between consumer
and provider. Furthermore, the primary reference, Mannava,
teaches that [the] contract specify the service offering .... As
such, the contract is associated with the service and/or [the]
contract defines the services and services can be looked up by
retrieving the contract from the database by using the contract
ID. Hughes teaches the lookup for contract based on contract
identifier. It is the same concept as per claim 16.
(Final Act. 3.) Appellants argue that "the contract ID in Hughes is used for
looking up a contract in a contract database" where "claim 16 recites looking
up the service ... using an identifier of the contract" and that "[t]his concept
is not taught or hinted at by Hughes." (App. Br. 6.) Appellants additionally
argue that "[ w ]hat the Examiner appears to argue is that looking up a
contract is the same as looking up a service" and that "such an interpretation
is incorrect." (Id. at 7.)
We agree with the Examiner's finding that, because "the contract is
associated with the service and/or ... defines the services," it would have
been obvious that "services can be looked up by retrieving the contract from
the database by using the contract ID." (Final Act. 3.) The argument that
"Hughes is used for looking up a contract in a contract database" ignores the
finding that, because the contract specifies the services, looking up the
contract also looks up the associated services. We conclude that Appellants
have not persuasively explained why the Examiner's analysis reproduced
4
Appeal2015-003793
Application 13/448,741
above is incorrect. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 8,
9, 11-13, 16-18, and 20-22.
We do agree with Appellants, however, on their second argument.
Appellants correctly observe that the passage of Mannava (i-f 197) cited in
the Final Action does not teach or suggest "recei[pt], by the enforcement
device, [of] the identifier of the contractfrom the service consumer," and the
Examiner does not explain why that limitation would necessarily be met or
provide any additional support in the Answer. Thus, on this record, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 2--4, 14, 15, and 19, which have not been
shown to be unpatentable for the reasons argued in connection with the
second contention.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16-18, and 20-22 are
affirmed. The rejections of claims 2--4, 14, 15, and 19 are reversed.
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-IN-PART
5