Ex Parte Malone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2013

11741511 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER G. MALONE and THANE M. LARSON
__________

Appeal 2011-004340
Application 11/741,511
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method of managing hardware components, a system comprising an
application to manage hardware components, and an article of manufacture
comprising code for managing hardware components. The Patent Examiner
rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-004340
Application 11/741,511

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-21 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as
follows:
1. A method for managing hardware components comprising:
managing, performed by a computer system, hardware components in at
least one system at a central management level using visual graphics
that present assembly and repair functionality in combination with
system health information; and
presenting, performed by the computer system, a visual set of step-by-step
instructions through the visual graphics for addition, deletion, and
replacement of the managed hardware components.

The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
• claims 1-6, 8, 11-15, 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Polan1 and Leja;2
• claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Polan, Leja and Desai;3 and
• claims 9-10 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Polan, Leja and Battat.4

OBVIOUSNESS
I. The Rejection over Polan and Leja
The Examiner found that Polan disclosed a method for managing
hardware components comprising managing, performed by a computer

1 Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0248159 A1 by Michael
George Polan et al., published Nov. 2, 2006.
2 Patent No. US 6, 618,771 B1 issued to Tina Marie Leja et al., Sep. 9, 2003.
3 Patent No. US 6, 968,291 B1 issued to Keyur B. Desai, Nov. 22, 2005.
4 Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0013837 A1 by Reuven Battat
et al., published Jan. 31, 2002.
Appeal 2011-004340
Application 11/741,511

3
system, hardware components in at least one system at a central
management level using visual graphics that present assembly and repair
functionality in combination with system health information; and
presenting, performed by the computer system, an application through the
visual graphics for addition, deletion, and replacement of the managed
hardware components. (Ans. 3-4.) However, the Examiner found that Polan
did not explicitly disclose that its system presents a visual set of step-by-step
instructions. (Id. at 4.) The Examiner found that Leja disclosed a method
for presenting to users step-by-step instructions, using visual graphics, for
installing a scanner. (Id.)
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included
a visual set of step-by-step instructions through visual graphics, as taught by
Leja, in Polan’s method. (Id.) The Examiner reasoned that one of skill in
the art would have been motivated to do so to guide users that are not
familiar with the system through the process. (Id.)
Appellants contend that “there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Polan and Leja, because Polan and Leja teach away from each
other.” (App. Br. 8.) Specifically, Appellants assert that Polan’s disclosures
that (a) “[w]hile some systems present this information visually to show
statuses and allocations of devices, it is difficult to navigate through all the
devices since the volume of information to be rendered is large,” and (b)
“most data center management systems present the information in two-
dimensions, which makes it cumbersome and time consuming for the users
to interact with the data center inventory,” teach away from Leja’s
disclosure of a visual set of step-by-step instructions through visual graphics
Appeal 2011-004340
Application 11/741,511

4
wherein “the scanner installation program causes various screens having
various options to be displayed to a user….” (App. Br. 8-10)(quoting Polan
and Leja).
After considering all the evidence and arguments, we conclude that
the record supports a conclusion of prima facie obviousness. Specifically,
we do not find that Appellants have established that Polan and Leja teach
away from each other. Appellants refer to a portion of Polan’s disclosure in
the Background of the Invention, which states:
[0004] In a data center that comprises a large number of
heterogeneous devices, information, such as inventories,
assignments, statuses, and loads of the devices must be tracked
and reported. Currently, data center management systems track
and report this information statically using textual
representation. While some systems present this information
visually to show statuses and allocations of devices, it is
difficult to navigate through all the devices since the volume of
information to be rendered is large.

[0005] In addition, most data center management systems
present the information in two-dimensions, which makes it
cumbersome and time consuming for the users to interact with
the data center inventory. Therefore, it would be advantageous
to have an improved method to present data center information,
such that the limitations of two-dimension displays may be
eliminated and interactions with data center inventory is easier.

(Polan [0004]-[0005].)
While Polan describes the difficulty of navigating through data center
devices when the information showing statuses and allocations of the
devices are presented visually, and that presenting such information in two-
dimensions makes it cumbersome and time consuming for the user to
interact with the data center inventory, Polan also provides a solution to this
Appeal 2011-004340
Application 11/741,511

5
problem by providing a method and system for presenting data center
information in virtual reality using leading edge rendering engines. (Id. at
[0006].) In particular, Polan describes:
The mechanism of the present invention constructs a virtual
reality space using a virtual reality rendering engine, populates
the virtual reality space with data center information, renders
the virtual reality space in a user interface to at least one
operator, and performs data center operations based on the
commands responsive to receiving commands from the at least
one operator.

(Id.) As the Examiner explained, Polan further teaches that an administrator
can, in the virtual space, add, delete, and/or replace the managed hardware
components. (Ans. 4)(citing Polan [0039], [0048], [0067].) The Examiner
recognized that Polan did not explicitly disclose that its system presented a
visual set of step-by-step instructions for these functions, but found that Leja
cured this deficiency. (Ans. 4.)
Leja discloses a scanner installation program which “provides step-
by-step visual aids that show the user how to connect the scanner to the
user’s computer.” (Leja col. 3, ll. 27-30.) Appellants assert that because
Leja’s program “causes various screens having various options to be
displayed to a user …[which] provide the user with information that guides
the user step-by-step through the scanner installation procedure,” a skilled
artisan would not have been motivated to combine this teaching with Polan.
(App. Br. 9.) According to Appellants, the two references teach away from
each other. (Id.) However, Appellants have not explained how a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the references, would have been discouraged
from, or would have been led in a direction divergent from, including in
Polan’s virtual reality a visual set of step-by-step instructions through visual
Appeal 2011-004340
Application 11/741,511

6
graphics, as taught by Leja. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994). To the extent that Appellants contend that Leja’s visual set of
instructions amounts to visual information that Polan described as “difficult
to navigate” or “cumbersome and time consuming for users,” we disagree.
As discussed, Polan overcame this problem regarding visually presented
information by using a virtual reality rendering engine. The Examiner’s
combination of Polan and Leja yields a system wherein the visual set of
step-by-step instructions are presented through visual graphics in the same
virtual rooms of the same virtual reality space as Polan’s the managed
hardware components. Thus, in the combination, Leja’s visual instructions
are presented in a manner, i.e., in Polan’s virtual reality, “such that
administrators may manipulate data center devices and its information more
easily.” (Polan [0070].)
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 over Polan and Leja.
Claims 2-6, 8, 11-15, 17, and 21 have not been argued separately and
therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
II. The Rejection over Polan, Leja and Desai
The Examiner found that Polan and Leja disclosed the method
according to claim 1 as discussed regarding the rejection over Polan and
Leja. (Ans. 8.) The Examiner included Desai in the combination to reach
additional limitations recited in claims 7 and 16. (Id.)
Appellants contend that “Polan and Leja teach away from each other
and cannot be combined to render embodiments of the present technology
obvious.” (App. Br. 12.) Further, Appellants assert that “Desai does not
overcome the demonstrated shortcomings of Polan and Leja.” (Id.)
Appeal 2011-004340
Application 11/741,511

7
As discussed, we do not find that Appellants have demonstrated that
Polan and Leja teach away from each other.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection over Polan, Leja and Desai.
III. The Rejection over Polan, Leja and Battat
The Examiner found that Polan and Leja disclosed the method
according to claim 1 as discussed regarding the rejection over Polan and
Leja. (Ans. 9.) The Examiner included Battat in the combination to reach
additional limitations recited in claims 9-10 and 18-20. (Id.)
Appellants contend that “Battat does not overcome the demonstrated
shortcomings of Polan and Leja,” as discussed regarding the rejection over
Polan and Leja. (App. Br. 13.) Further, Appellants assert that Battat also
teaches away from Leja. (Id. at 14.) Specifically, Appellants assert:
“[p]rior art systems were deficient generally for two reasons:
first, limitations inherent in available user interfaces ...” (Battat,
paragraph 5). Appellants respectfully submit that “limitations
inherent in available user interfaces,” as disclose[d] by Battat,
also teaches away from “the scanner installation program
causes various screens having various options to be displayed to
a user,” as disclose[d] by Leja.

(Id. at 13-14.)
As discussed, we do not find that Appellants have demonstrated that
Polan and Leja teach away from each other. Nor do we find that Appellants
have demonstrated that Battat teaches away from Leja. In particular,
Appellants have not explained how Battat’s teaching that prior art systems
were deficient due to “limitations inherent in available user interfaces”
criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages Leja’s teaching to provide a
visual set of step-by-step instructions through visual graphics.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection over Polan, Leja and Battat.
Appeal 2011-004340
Application 11/741,511

8
SUMMARY
We affirm each of the obviousness rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc