Ex Parte Nitin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13571214 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/571,214 08/09/2012 Harvadan Nagoria NITIN
56436 7590 11/02/2016
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.
83037620 1059
EXAMINER
VU,VIETD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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 HARV ADAN NAGORIA NITIN, MARTIN BOSLER,
and AMIT KUMAR
Appeal2015-006479
Application 13/571,214 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLL. SILVERMAN, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3-20. Claim 2 is cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-006479
Application 13/571,214
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a
monitoring engine to monitor configuration items of each layer of a
multilayer network in a synchronized fashion. (Abstract)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a monitoring engine to monitor configuration items of each layer
of a multilayer network in a distributed fashion in which
configuration items of each layer are monitored at a
predefined time interval following monitoring of
configuration items of another layer; and
a data structure to contain a plurality of records, each record
pertaining to a corresponding configuration item, and each
record to include a causal rule for the corresponding
configuration item; and
wherein each causal rule is to specify a relationship between the
configuration item corresponding to the causal rule and
another configuration item.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lev et al. (US 7,142,516 B2, issued Nov. 28, 2006)
and Kan et al. (US 7,483,379 B2, issued Jan. 27, 2009). (Final Act. 2-3.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Lev. (Final Act. 4--5.)
2
Appeal2015-006479
Application 13/571,214
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issues: 2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Lev and Kan teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation, "each
causal rule is to specify a relationship between the configuration item
corresponding to the causal rule and another configuration item." (App. Br.
8-9.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Lev discloses the
independent claim 10 limitation, "a causal rule that establishes a relationship
between that configuration item and a configuration item in another layer,"
and the similar limitation recited in independent claim 17. (App. Br. 11.)
ANALYSIS
Issue One
In finding the limitation at issue is taught or suggested by Lev and
Kan, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Lev of a performance
monitoring system which includes associating a performance parameter with
a set of events in a communications network, with information on the events
stored in a bit map. (Final Act. 2; Lev col. 6, 11. 46-67.) The Examiner
finds the bit map "comprises data regarding relationships between
configuration items." (Id.) The Examiner further finds Kan "teaches a
network monitoring system that stores an evaluation rule at each
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 10, 2014); the Reply
Brief (filed June 22, 2015); the Final Office Action (mailed Sep. 30, 2014);
and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Apr. 24, 2015) for the respective
details.
3
Appeal2015-006479
Application 13/571,214
configuration item, wherein the rules specify a relationship between
configuration items," relying on the disclosure in Kan of a network
monitoring system which uses "rule sets" of criteria to measure data flow in
the network. (Final Act. 2-3; Kan col. 6, 11. 19-63.)
Appellants argue neither Lev nor Kan teach or suggest a causal rule
that specifies a relationship between configuration items, as required by the
claim 1. (App. Br. 8-9.) At most, argue Appellants:
Lev discloses associating performance parameters with events ..
. . The relationship in Lev is between performance parameters
and events. An event is not a "configuration item." Events are
not configurable. Instead, events simply happen.
(App. Br. 8.) In regard to Kan, Appellants argue:
The cited passage of Kan refers to a "rule set." Each rule
set, however, "includes one or more criteria that may be
measured from either data in or relating to each IP packet."
Kan at col. 6, lines 43-45. The rule sets in Kan do not "specify
a relationship between configuration items" as is recited in
claim 1.
(App. Br. 9.)
In response, the Examiner finds:
Lev's performance primitives and/or parameters are clearly
considered as "configuration items" because they can be
defined, configured and modified by the users to measure the
network performance.
(Ans. 7.) Based on this interpretation of "configuration item," the Examiner
finds the necessary teachings in the combination of Lev and Kan. (Id.)
We do not agree with the Examiner's claim construction. The
Specification defines "configuration item" as "an item of hardware and/or
software that is configurable." (Spec. i-f 13.) We agree with appellants that
4
Appeal2015-006479
Application 13/571,214
events cannot reasonably be construed as configurable items, from the
standpoint of one of ordinary skill upon reading the Specification. Absent
the Examiner's overbroad construction configuration item, we find no
support in the cited references or the Examiner's analysis for a teaching or
suggestion of the required "causal rule is to specify a relationship between
the configuration item corresponding to the causal rule and another
configuration item."
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1.
Issue Two
For the same reasons as discussed above, Lev taken alone does not
disclose the required "causal rule that establishes a relationship between that
configuration item and a configuration item in another layer." Therefore, we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 10 and 1 7.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 over Lev and Kan, or the anticipation rejection of claims
10 and 17 over Lev. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of
claims 3-9 over Lev and Kan, or the anticipation rejection of claims 11-16
and 18-20 over Lev, which claims depend from claims 1, 10 or 1 7.
5
Appeal2015-006479
Application 13/571,214
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-20.
REVERSED
6