Ex Parte David et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

11971668 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/971,668 01/09/2008
33438 7590 06/29/2018
TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joshua David
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.
DC-13632 5300
EXAMINER
YESILDAG, MEHMET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 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):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSHUA DAVID,
FRUNKLIN TANG, and THOMAS PAINTER
Appeal2017-002130
Application 11/971,668 1
Technology Center 3600
Before: BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 19--22. Claims 2, 5, 6, 8,
11, 12, 14, 17,and 18arecanceled. App.Br.10-14. Wehavejurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Dell Products L.P. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2017-002130
Application 11/971,668
Invention
Appellants disclose a "system for presenting a visual dashboard [that]
presents real time information regarding [the] health of business processes
through the health of the underlying [ information technology] systems."
Abstract.
Representative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method for providing information regarding health of business
processes compnsmg:
associating, via a computer system, a plurality of business processes
with a plurality of information technology systems, at least some of
the plurality of business processes comprising sub processes of
information technology systems;
monitoring, via a processor of the computer system, health of the
plurality of information technology systems;
providing information, via the computer system, regarding the health
of the plurality of business processes based upon the health of the
plurality of information technology systems;
associating each of the plurality of information technology systems
with respective information technology system elements;
presenting, via a business service management dashboard presented
on a display device, the information technology system elements such
that the presenting the information technology system elements
provides information regarding the health of the plurality of business
processes and the health of the sub processes;
associating each of the sub processes of information technology
systems with respective information technology system sub elements;
and,
enabling adjusting of how the respective information technology
system sub elements affect the health of the respective information
technology system elements via the business service management
dashboard, the adjusting the respective information technology
subsystem including modifying how certain information technology
2
Appeal2017-002130
Application 11/971,668
sub elements operate from within the business service management
dashboard.
Rejections2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 19--22
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Final Act. 2--4.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 19--21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 9--
10.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 19--22
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Trinon et al.
(US 2004/0024571 Al; published Feb. 5, 2004) ("Trinon") and Anzelde
et al. (US 2008/0155325 Al; published June 26, 2008) ("Anzelde"). 3 Final
Act. 10-18.
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, because "[i]t is vague and unclear how certainty of an[] operation
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16,
and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (cf Final Act. 4--9 with
Ans. 3).
3 The Examiner inconsistently cites to both 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) and
35 U.S.C. § I02(b) in rejecting the claims. Final Act. 10. Appellants
interpret the Examiner's rejection to be grounded in§ I02(b) (based on
Trinon alone) for claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 16, but grounded in
§ I03(a) (based on Trinon and Anzelde) for claims 19-22. App. Br. 6. For
purposes of this appeal, we interpret the Examiner's rejection as being
grounded in I03(a) for all the claims. However, the Examiner is directed to
resolve any ambiguity in the event of further prosecution so as to minimize
the risk of misdirected future arguments or analysis.
3
Appeal2017-002130
Application 11/971,668
is measured and modified," making the recitation "adjusting the respective
information technology subsystem including modifying how certain
information technology sub elements operate" unclear, thereby rendering
claim 1 indefinite. Final Act. 9-10. Appellants do not raise any issues with
respect to this rejection. Therefore, we summarily affirm the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 1, and similarly
rejected claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 19-21.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Findings and Contentions
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner concludes
the claimed method for providing information regarding the health of
business processes represents a method that "can be performed by a [h ]uman
mentally ... by pen and ... paper ... and/or by use of a generic computer/
processor as a tool." Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner also concludes the
claimed method represents a method of organizing human activities that
represents an unpatentable abstract idea. Id. at 3. The Examiner further
concludes that the claim recitations directed to hardware or software
elements "are not enough to qualify as 'significantly more'" than the
underlying abstract idea. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the claimed method
"overcome[ s] a problem specifically arising in graphical user interfaces."
App. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue "[t]he claimed invention
addresses the challenge of providing information regarding [the] health of
business processes." Id. Appellants further argue the claim includes
"meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of an
abstract idea on a computer system because they are necessarily rooted in
4
Appeal2017-002130
Application 11/971,668
computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in graphical
user interfaces." Id. at 6; see also Reply Br. 1-3.
Analysis
To be statutorily patentable, the subject matter of an invention must be
a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
or [a] new and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. There are
implicit exceptions to the categories of patentable subject matter identified
in§ 101, including: (1) laws of nature; (2) natural phenomena; and (3)
abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
The Supreme Court has set forth a framework for distinguishing patents with
claims directed to these implicit exceptions "from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts." Id. (citing Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). The evaluation
follows a two-part analysis: (1) determine whether the claim is directed to a
patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea; and (2) if a patent-ineligible
concept is present in the claim, determine whether any element, or
combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim
amounts to significantly more than the patent-ineligible concept itself. See
Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355.
Appellants' arguments fail to show error in the Examiner's analysis
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 showing that the claimed method is directed to an
abstract idea. In particular, the Examiner persuasively shows that the
claimed method, which relates to the use of information regarding
information technology systems, elements, and sub-elements in determining
whether to present information regarding the health of associated business
processes, represents an abstract idea. Final Act. 3. That is, the claimed
5
Appeal2017-002130
Application 11/971,668
invention merely is directed to "a process of gathering and analyzing
information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any
particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions."
Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ( emphasis added).
Appellants argue that the claimed invention "overcome[ s] a problem
specifically arising in graphical user interfaces." App. Br. 5. However, no
particular graphical user interface technology is claimed. Thus, rather than
improving any graphical user interface technology per se, the claimed
invention merely uses a display device as a tool for visualizing the output
from the claimed process. See Ans. 4.
Appellants further argue the claim limitations "add more than
generally linking the use of an abstract idea on a computer system because
they are necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem
specifically arising in graphical user interface." App. Br. 6. However, we
can find nothing in the claimed invention that requires a "nonconventional
computer, network, or display components, or even a 'non-conventional and
non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."' Electric, 830
F.3d at 1355 (citing Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349--52 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101
rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 19-22, which
Appellants do not argue separately.
6
Appeal2017-002130
Application 11/971,668
35 U.S.C. § 103(A}-CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, AND 16
Findings and Contentions
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
Trinon's algorithm for computing severity levels among components that
depend on other components-where components can be computer,
computer peripherals, computer programs, networking equipment,
manufacturing equipment, or business processes-teaches or suggests claim
recitations directed to associating a plurality of business processes with a
plurality of information technology systems and providing information
regarding the health of the plurality of business processes based upon the
health of the plurality of information technology systems. Final Act. 10-11
(citing, e.g., Trinon ,r,r 3, 14, 15, 21-26, and Fig. 1).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Trinon fails to teach
or suggest:
associating a plurality of business processes with a plurality of
information technology systems where each of the plurality of
business processes comprises a collection of related activities
that produce a specific goal much less of providing information
regarding the health of the plurality of business processes
based upon the health of the plurality of information
technology systems.
App. Br. 7.
Analysis
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of error because, as the
Examiner correctly notes, Trinon teaches that the tree structure illustrated in
figure 1 "is composed of both IT resources and business processes which are
associated [with] each other." Ans. 6 (citing Trinon ,r,r 3, 14, 15, 21-26, and
Fig. 1 ). In particular, Trinon explicitly discloses that services provided to
7
Appeal2017-002130
Application 11/971,668
customers "are often built using a large variety of components" that include
"computers, computer peripherals, computer programs, networking
equipment, and manufacturing equipment." Trinon ,r 3. "Components can
also be virtual components like business processes that can be combined into
a business system." Id. Thus, contrary to Appellants' arguments, Trinon's
treatment of business processes as a "virtual component" in a graph that
includes information technology components teaches or suggests the
claimed association of business processes and information technology
systems. Moreover, Trinon directly pertains to conveying severity
information regarding a component and its underlying components so as to
allow a "user to know whether the element or/and its subcomponents or
components depending from it are healthy." Id. ,r 23. Because components
in Trinon can be either business processes or information technology
components ( e.g., computers), conveying such information teaches or
suggests "providing information regarding the health of the plurality of
business processes based upon the health of the plurality of information
technology systems," contrary to Appellants' arguments. App. Br. 7.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 16, which
Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 6-7.
35 U.S.C. § 103(A}-CLAIMS 19-22
Findings and Contentions
In rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
Anzelde' s entity weight assignment teachings and suggestions render
obvious modifying Trinon so that adjusting of how the respective
information technology system sub elements affect the health of the
8
Appeal2017-002130
Application 11/971,668
respective information technology system elements further comprises
providing certain sub elements with respective amounts of weighting, a
respective amount of weighting of a certain sub element causing a respective
information technology system element to indicate a warning when certain
criteria are met, while a respective amount of weighting of another certain
sub element causing the another certain information technology system
element to not indicate a warning. Final Act. 12-13 (citing, e.g., Anzelde
,r,r 4, 29, 32--40, and Fig. 1 ); see also Ans. 8.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Anzelde' s
"components [have] the same amount of weighting based upon the severity
level." App. Br. 8.
Analysis
The Examiner correctly finds that Anzelde teaches or suggests use of
both an assigned "status weight [for] each of the status values" (Anzelde,
Abstract, ,r 34) and an assigned "entity weight [for] each of the system
entities" (id. ,r 35). See Ans. 8. That is, contrary to Appellants' argument
that Anzelde's components have equal weighting (App. Br. 8), Anzelde
teaches or suggest giving different components different entity weights.
Therefore, Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's
findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 19, and claims 20-22, which Appellants do not argue separately.
App. Br. 8.
9
Appeal2017-002130
Application 11/971,668
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10,
13, 15, 16, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10,
13, 15, 16, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13,
15, 16, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
10