Ex Parte Patel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

10729607 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

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.
10/729,607 12/05/2003 Rikin S. Patel 82255964 2892
56436 7590 09/27/2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
MADAMBA, GLENFORD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RIKIN S. PATEL
Appeal 2015-000378
Application 10/729,607
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner finally rejected claims 2, 6—12, 15, 19-33, 35—40, 43,
and 45—56. Claims 1, 3—5, 13, 14, 16—18, 34, 41, 42, and 44 are canceled.
Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Reverse.
Invention
This invention relates to system and method for managing faults in a
service-oriented architecture. (Spec. 1). Claim 2, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal 2015-000378
Application 10/729,607
Illustrative Claim
2. A method for managing faults in a web service architecture
comprising:
receiving, from a first service consumer, a service request
in a web service language, wherein the service request
comprises invoking a service over a network;
translating the service request into a non-web service
language;
executing the service request;
encountering an exception during the execution, wherein
the exception comprises a fault;
without responding to the fault, storing fault information
to persist the fault; and
in response to a request from a fault service consumer,
providing a particular level of a plurality of different levels
of the stored fault information to the fault service
consumer, wherein the fault service consumer is different
from the first service consumer, wherein the particular
level of the plurality of different levels is selected based
on one or more characteristics of the fault service
consumer.
(Contested dispositive limitations emphasized in italics and bold).
Rejections 1
A. Claims 2, 6-12, 15, 19-33, 35^10, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52-54, and 56
are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Hsu et al. (US Patent No. 7,146,544 B2; Dec
5, 2006) (hereinafter “Hsu”), Catania et al. (US Patent Application
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101. (Final Act.
2).
2
Appeal 2015-000378
Application 10/729,607
Publication No. 2005/0015472 Al; Jan. 20, 2005) (hereinafter
“Catania”), and Lehner (US Patent 6,757,850 Bl; June 29, 2004).
B. Claims 46, 49, 51, and 55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu, Catania, Lehner, and
Vambenepe et al. (US Publication No. 2004/0237094 Al; Nov. 25,
2004) (hereinafter “Vambenepe”).
Prior Decision
Appeal No. 2010-005713 (Application No. 10/729,607), mailed
December 13, 2012. (The Examiner affirmed over claims of different scope
than the amended claims presented in this appeal).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited
references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested
the dispositive contested limitations (shown in italics and bold):
in response to a request from a fault service consumer,
providing a particular level of a plurality of different levels of the
stored fault information to the fault service consumer, wherein
the fault service consumer is different from the first service
consumer, wherein the particular level of the plurality of
different levels is selected based on one or more
characteristics of the fault service consumer[,]
within the meaning of independent claim 2, and the commensurate contested
language recited in remaining independent claims 11, 26, and 45? 2
2 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3
Appeal 2015-000378
Application 10/729,607
In the Final Action (8), the Examiner finds the contested limitation is
taught or suggested by Lehner:
(Lehner: e.g., expressly teaches and discloses in one embodiment
of his invention that “a Remote Service Management {RSM}
Fault Escalation mechanism provides the ability to send
electronic mail to one or more preselected recipient, and wherein
the ‘selection’ is based upon criteria such as the ‘type of fault,
type of machine and customer’ on the occurrence of the
escalatable fault on a customer computer. The fault and email
routing data is stored in a ‘relational database’ ...”) [col 1, L45-
52] (e.g., expressly teaches in one aspect that “the ‘action’ to be
taken on the fault is determined by searching the action table
based on different ‘keys’ < Customer, Server ID, Fault
Tvve>..:y) [col 9, Ll-30] [col 10, L40-64] (also Claim 1 [of
Lehner]) [col 11, L19-35].
Appellant disagrees:
cited portions of Lehner fail to disclose that the particular level
of the plurality of different levels is selected based on one or
more characteristics of the fault service consumer. Rather,
Lehner merely discloses that sending the “email notification” is
one possible action that may be taken based on “criteria”
including a “customer” See Lehner, col. 9, In. 2-7.
(App. Br. 8).
In the “Response to Argument” section of the Answer (which has no
listed page numbers3), the Examiner restates the aforementioned findings
3 We implore the Examiner to include page numbers on all Office
correspondence. We note the PTO electronic copy (DAV file) of the
Answer indicates 44 pages in length, which are difficult to reference in the
absence of any page numbers. Therefore, we reference the Examiner’s
rejections as presented in the Final Office Action, and we reference the
Answer by considering the “Response to Argument” page of the Answer
as page 1.
4
Appeal 2015-000378
Application 10/729,607
regarding Lehner, as copied from the Final Action (8). (See the fifth page of
the Answer after the unnumbered (first) “Response to Argument” page).
Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports Appellant’s contentions regarding Lehner. (App. Br. 8).
However, the Examiner shifts position in the Answer, and presents a
new alternative basis for the rejection of independent claim 2, now finding
Catania’s IT manager, who registers to subscribe to receive event
notifications (| 27), teaches the recited “request from a fault service
consumer . . . .” (Claim 1) (See page 9 of the Answer after the unnumbered
(first) “Response to Argument” page).
Regarding the contested limitation, the Examiner further shifts
position and finds: “Catania additionally teaches and discloses that the
particular fault / error ‘notification’ sent to the Manager may include
‘Severity’ (which indicates the Severity ‘Level’ for the notice) as well as
‘CorrectiveMessage’ (which suggests a ‘corrective action’) for the detected
fault event. [0036-0045].” (See page 9 of the Answer after the unnumbered
(first) “Response to Argument” page) (emphasis added).
The Examiner further finds:
Based on the above, it is clear that at least Catania alternatively,
or in combination with Lehner, discloses the recited feature of
providing “a particular level of a plurality of different levels of
the stored fault information to the fault service consumer stored
fault information is provided to the fault service consumer,
wherein the particular level of the plurality of different levels is
selected based on one or more 'characteristics' of the fault
service consumer” (i.e., ‘role / responsibility/ position' of the
fault service ‘Subscriber’, such as a ‘Manager’}. The above
amended / argued claim features are thus alternatively expressly
taught or disclosed in further view of Catania - and the Office
5
Appeal 2015-000378
Application 10/729,607
maintains its rejection of the claims over the applied prior art
references for at least these reasons.
(See pages 9-10 of the Answer after the unnumbered (first) “Response to
Argument” page).
In the Reply Brief (4—5), Appellant addresses the Examiner’s new
findings:
Appellant respectfully disagrees. Specifically, while Catania
describes various elements that can be included in an “error
message,” it says nothing whatsoever about selecting
different levels of such elements based on the asserted “role”
of the subscriber. In fact, Catania does not appear to describe
any “role” other than “manager.” It is noted that the term
“manager,” as used in Catania, does not refer to a supervisor of
other persons or roles, but rather refers to the intended user of
the “managed object” interface described in Catania. For
example, Fig. 1 of Catania shows “an embodiment of event
notification system 100 that allows manager 102 to monitor and
control information technology (IT) resources [ ... ] Resources
that are configured to interface with manager 102 are represented
by managed objects 108.” See Catania, Fig. 1 and par. [0021],
Note that Fig. 1 shows the “manager 102” as a user, but does
not show any other users or roles. Accordingly, it is clear that
Catania does not disclose different “roles” of subscribers,
much less providing different levels of fault information
based on such different “roles” of subscribers, as asserted by
the Answer.
(Emphases added).
Claim Construction
In the Answer (see fourth unnumbered page after the unnumbered first
“Response to Argument” page), we note the Examiner clarifies that the
recited “fault service consumer” is being read on “network resource
‘support personnel’ or [a] network ‘administrator, for example.” On the
6
Appeal 2015-000378
Application 10/729,607
same page (id.), the Examiner clarifies that the recited “first service
consumer” is being read on a “user.” See Claim 2 (emphasis added).
Although Catania focuses on the role of an information technology
(IT) manager (Abstract, Title), we agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 5) that
the Examiner has not fully developed the record to show that the newly cited
portions of Catania flflf 27, 36-45) teach or suggest “providing different
levels of fault information based on such different ‘roles’ of
subscribers[,]” so as to overcome the deficiencies of the Examiner’s
original version of the rejection of independent claim 2. (Emphases added).
(See Final Act. 4—8).
After reviewing the evidence, we find the notification of different
types of events in Catania by registered IT manager subscription (| 27) does
not necessarily teach that the selection of a particular event level (e.g., event
severity level) is based upon any particular characteristic of the manager
(i.e., “fault service consumer” as claimed). Although the event notifications
in Catania may include the “severity level for the notice” (13 8), we find no
express teaching that a particular severity level is selected based upon the
characteristics of a particular manager. Although we have considered the
new citations to Catania flflf 27, 36-45), as provided by the Examiner in the
Answer, we find Catania does not necessarily teach routing (i.e.,
“providing”) fault events of a particular severity level to a particular
manager, based on one or more characteristics of the manager (i.e., “fault
service consumer” — claim 2).
Therefore, we find the evidence cited by the Examiner insufficient to
show that “the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would
result in the performance of the questioned function.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v
7
Appeal 2015-000378
Application 10/729,607
TWIPharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194-95 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal
citation omitted).
For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant in the Briefs, we
are persuaded the Examiner has not shown that the proffered combination of
Hsu, Catania, and Lehner teaches or suggests at least the contested claim
limitation: “wherein the particular level of the plurality of different levels
[of stored fault information] is selected based on one or more
characteristics of the fault service consumer.” (Claim 2, emphases added).
Accordingly, on this record, we find Appellant’s arguments regarding
the dispositive contested limitations, as recited in independent claim 2, are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Because remaining
independent claims 11, 26, and 45 recite the contested dispositive limitations
in similar, commensurate form, on this record, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejection A of all claims rejected thereunder.
Rejection B of dependent claims 46, 49, 51, and 55
Regarding the §103 rejection B of dependent claims 46, 49, 51, and
55, we find the Examiner has not established on this record that the
additionally cited Vambenepe reference overcomes the aforementioned
deficiency of the base combination of Hsu, Catania, and Lehner, for the
reasons discussed above regarding rejection A of the independent claims.
Therefore, we are constrained on this record to also reverse rejection
B of dependent claims 46, 49, 51, and 55, over the cited combination of Hsu,
Catania, Lehner, and Vambenepe.
8
Appeal 2015-000378
Application 10/729,607
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 6—12, 15,
19-33, 35—40, 43, and 45—56 under § 103.
REVERSED
9