IpVenture, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2020

14697490 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2020)

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.
14/697,490 04/27/2015 Saumitra Das INSTP001C1D2C1 8778
34071 7590 09/28/2020
IPVENTURE, INC.
4010 Moorpark Avenue
Suite 211
San Jose, CA 95117
EXAMINER
BUSS, BENJAMIN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2125
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAUMITRA DAS, STEPAN SOKOLOV, and
BILL YUAN-CHI CHIU

Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–8 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1
See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as IpVenture, Inc.
See Appeal Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Apr. 27, 2015
(claiming benefit of multiple applications including US 60/371,659, filed
Apr. 10, 2002); Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Mar. 5, 2019; and Reply
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention, according to Appellant, “relates to computer systems
and, more particularly, to management of computer systems” (Spec. ¶ 2) and
“operates or includes various products (e.g., software products) that can be
managed in a management system or collectively by a group of management
systems” (Spec. ¶ 6). More specifically, Appellant’s invention relates to
computer-readable media for managing an enterprise computer system
capable of operating multiple different software products, by: receiving a
fact pertaining to a condition of one of the software products, asserting
(providing) the fact to an inference engine that uses rules (that are based on
facts, and are obtained from a knowledge base), retrieving an updated fact
from the inference engine, initiating an action based on the updated fact,
using the inference engine to diagnose a software problem within the
enterprise computer system due to one (or more) of the software products
operating in the enterprise computer system and identify the software
product(s) causing the software problem, making log entries to store log data
pertaining to asserted fact. See Spec. ¶¶ 6–11; Abstract. Claim 1 (directed
to a computer-readable medium including computer program code stored
therein) is independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium
including at least computer program code stored therein for
managing an enterprise computer system, the enterprise
computer system being configured to operate a plurality of

Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed May 1, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Aug. 7, 2018; and Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed Mar. 25, 2019.
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

3
different software products, said computer-readable medium
comprising:
computer program code for receiving a fact pertaining to
a condition of at least one of the plurality of different software
products that are operating in the enterprise computer system;
computer program code for asserting the fact to an
inference engine, the inference engine using rules based on facts,
the rules are obtained from a knowledge base that stores the rules
as well as resources associated with the plurality of different
software products;
computer program code for retrieving at least one updated
fact from the inference engine based on at least one rule from
those of the rules stored in the knowledge base that are dependent
on the fact that has been asserted;
computer program code for initiating an action in view of
the at least one updated fact;
computer program code for diagnosing a software problem
at the enterprise computer system due to at least one of the
plurality of different software products operating at the enterprise
computer system, using the inference engine and the at least one
rule from the knowledge base, where the diagnosing of the
software program operates to identify the at least one of the
plurality of different software products operating at the enterprise
computer system that is a cause of the software problem; and
computer program code for making log entries to store log
data in a log,
wherein at least one of the log entries pertains to at least
the fact that has been asserted,
wherein at least one of the plurality of different software
products comprises a JAVA application, and
wherein the plurality of different software products
operating at the enterprise computer system pertain to software
products other than software providing network access.
Appeal Br. A-1 through A-2 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bowman-Amuah US 6,345,239 B1 Feb. 5, 2002
Reticular Systems, Inc., AgentBuilder–An Integrated Toolkit for
Constructing Intelligent Software Agents (Feb. 18, 1999) (“Reticular”).
Richard Fox et al., Automated Debugging of Syntax Errors, University
of Texas-Pan American, Department of Computer Science Technical Report
(Aug. 1995) (“Fox”).
REJECTION3, 4
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Reticular, Fox, and Bowman-Amuah. See Final
Act. 12–20.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, and
6 together as a group with respect to the § 103(a) rejection. See Appeal Br.
13–16. Appellant provides nominal separate arguments with respect to
claims 7 and 8. See Appeal Br. 16–18. We select independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 7 and 8 as representative of Appellant’s arguments with
respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–8. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date (Apr. 10, 2002) prior to the AIA’s effective date
for applications (March 16, 2013), this decision refers 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Ans.
3; Final Act. 2–4. We do not address Appellant’s arguments to the
withdrawn rejection. See Appeal Br. 3–13.
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

5
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious in view of
Reticular, Fox, and Bowman-Amuah. See Final Act. 13–17; Ans. 3–7.
Appellant contends Reticular, Fox, and Bowman-Amuah do not teach the
disputed features of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13–16; Reply Br. 1–3.
Specifically, Appellant contends the Examiner relies on Fox to teach
diagnosing of the software program, and “Fox is concerned with debugging
syntax errors, not identification of a software product in an enterprise
computer system that is a cause (e.g., [‘]root-cause’) of a software problem.”
Appeal Br. 15; see Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant further contends “the
Examiner’s attempted rationale for combining the disparate references of
Reticular, Fox and Bowman-Amuah is insufficient” and “conclusory.”
Appeal Br. 15.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 13–17)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 3–7) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the
following analysis for emphasis.
Appellant’s claim 1 broadly recites software (computer program code)
“for diagnosing a software problem at the enterprise computer system due to
. . . one of the . . . different software products . . . using the inference engine
and the at least one rule from the knowledge base . . . to identify the . . .
different software product[] . . . that is a cause of the software problem”
(Appeal Br. A-1 (Claim App.) (claim 1))—i.e., diagnosing a software
problem and identifying the software product exhibiting the problem using
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

6
the inference engine (and a rule). As explained by the Examiner, Reticular
describes intelligent software agents at length, as well as intelligent agents
utilizing inference to accomplish problem-solving. See Final Act. 13–15;
Ans. 4–5; Reticular, pp. 6, 7, 12, 16, 53. Reticular, as explained by the
Examiner, also teaches debugging/diagnosing software problems (in the
agents). See Final Act. 13–15; Ans. 4–5; Reticular, pp. 36, 37, 40, 41, 45,
58. Accordingly, Reticular teaches, or at least suggests, using inference (an
inference engine) to perform tasks as well as debugging software. Appellant
does not dispute that Reticular teaches an inference engine, debugging
software (the agents) in a network environment (the enterprise computer
system), or debugging/diagnosing software problems, generally.
Reticular, however does not explicitly teach using an inference engine
to identify a software product that is a cause of the software problem or the
software problem itself. The Examiner relies on Fox for this teaching. As
explained by the Examiner, Fox describes that debugging is a form of
diagnosis, that debugging may be a routine (that can be performed by an
agent), that debugging requires inference or inferential capabilities, that
agents can perform tests for hypotheses (causes of error) including
debugging/software diagnosis, and agents using inference to perform
debugging. See Final Act. 15–17; Ans. 5–6; Fox, pp. 1, 2, 5, 6.
Accordingly, Fox teaches, or at least suggests, an agent using inference to
perform debugging/diagnosis of software problems.
Appellant interprets Fox too narrowly, and does not address the
combination of Fox with Reticular. Although Appellant is correct that Fox
describes the specific task of debugging syntax in software, Appellant fails
to appreciate the broader teaching or suggestion by the combination of
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

7
Reticular and Fox—using an inference engine to diagnose software
problems. Instead, Appellant focusses on the individual teaching of Fox and
does not address the combination of Reticular and Fox discussed by the
Examiner. See Ans. 4–6.
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings with
respect to the combination of references and improperly attacks the
references individually instead of addressing the combination as a whole.
The cited references must be read, not in isolation, but for what each fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references). Appellant’s arguments do not take into account
what the combination of Reticular and Fox would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art —
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; . . . . Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Reticular and Fox (in
combination with Bowman-Amuah) together teaches or at least suggests
software (computer program code) “for diagnosing a software problem” as
recited in claim 1—“diagnosing a software problem” (at an enterprise
computer system) due to one or more software products operating in the
enterprise computer system using an “inference engine and the at least one
rule from [a] knowledge base . . . to identify the . . . software product[] . . .
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

8
that is a cause of the software problem” (Appeal Br. A-1 (Claim App.)
(claim 1)).
With respect to Appellant’s second contention of error, Appellant
contends the Examiner failed to provide a sufficient rationale for combining
Reticular, Fox, and Bowman-Amuah. See Appeal Br. 15. We disagree.
The Examiner provides a rationale for combining Reticular and Fox—
Reticular and Fox are in “the same field of endeavor,” which is “solving
problems using software agents,” and it “would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings
of Reticular by applying the intelligent agents to automatic debugging [or]
diagnosing root causes of software problems as taught by Fox” because the
combination is more efficient (“for the benefit of saving programmers much
effort”) and “could be extended to solve other diagnostic problems” such as
aiding “educators who teach programming.” Final Act. 16 (citing Fox, p. 2).
The Examiner further explains that it would have been “obvious to apply
these automatic debugging agents to debugging other software,” because the
agents use “a known technique (agent-based automated debugging) to
improve[] similar devices.” Final Act. 16. The Examiner also provides a
rationale for combining Reticular and Fox with Bowman-Amuah—
“Bowman-Amuah and the combination of Reticular and Fox are from the
same field of endeavor,” which is “automated software problem diagnosis”
and it “would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Reticular and
Fox by logging and tracking problems” and other information “as taught by
Bowman-Amuah for the benefit of later analysis.” Final Act. 17 (citing
Bowman-Amuah, col. 54, ll. 15–45).
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

9
Appellant does not contend the references teach away from each
other, the proposed modification make the references inoperable, or
otherwise persuasively explain why the Examiner’s rationale is
unreasonable. Instead, Appellant simply contends, without detailed
explanation, that the Examiner’s “rationale for combining the disparate
references . . . is insufficient,” “contained only conclusory assertions,” and
“is unreasonable.” Appeal Br. 15. We agree with the Examiner that it
would have been well within the skill of one skilled in the art to combine
such known techniques of using an intelligent agent (inference engine) to
solve problems as taught by Reticular, such as diagnosing software problems
(debugging software) using an agent and inference techniques as taught by
Fox, as well as logging and tracking problems for additional analysis as
taught by Bowman-Amuah. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill”). We are not persuaded that
combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the
manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellant’s
invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claim 1 and dependent
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

10
claims 2, 4, and 6, not separately argued with particularity (supra). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 7
The Examiner rejects claim 7 over Reticular, Fox, and Bowman-
Amuah. See Final Act. 18–19; Ans. 7–8. Appellant contends Reticular,
Fox, and Bowman-Amuah do not teach the disputed feature of claim 7. See
Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant contends the
Examiner relies on Reticular to teach the disputed limitation—“wherein the
at least one of the plurality of different software products . . . that the
diagnosing of the software problem has identified as the cause of the
software problem is the JAVA application” (Appeal Br. A-2 (Claim App.)
(claim 7)). See Appeal Br. 16. Appellant concedes the Examiner-cited
portions of Reticular “indicat[e] that agents can be constructed from JAVA
and agents can be debugged” (Appeal Br. 16), but contends the referenced
portions of Reticular do not teach or suggest “any ability or desire to
diagnose which of a plurality of different software products operating on the
enterprise computer system is the cause of a software problem, and further
that the cause of the software problem is from a software product that is a
JAVA application” (Appeal Br. 17). See Reply Br. 4.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. See
Final Act. 18–19; Ans. 7–8. Reticular, as explained by the Examiner (see
Final Act. 18; Ans. 7–8) and conceded by Appellant (Appeal Br. 16),
describes debugging JAVA software (the agents). See, e.g., Reticular, pp.
36, 37, 40, 41. The combination of Reticular and Fox (see supra, claim 1
discussion) at least suggests diagnosing software problems using an
inference engine (agent software). In view of Fox’s teaching of debugging
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

11
JAVA software, the combination Reticular and Fox at least suggests
diagnosing a software problem in a JAVA application and, therefore, that the
diagnosed software is a JAVA application (the software product that “the
diagnosing of the software problem has identified as the cause of the
software problem is the JAVA application” (claim 7)). As with claim 1
(supra), Appellant does not address the combination of Reticular and Fox.
Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 7 for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1
(supra).
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 8
The Examiner rejects claim 8 over Reticular, Fox, and Bowman-
Amuah. See Final Act. 19–20; Ans. 8–9. Appellant contends Reticular,
Fox, and Bowman-Amuah do not teach the disputed feature of claim 8. See
Appeal Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant contends the
Examiner relies on Bowman-Amuah to teach the disputed limitations—
“wherein at least one of the log entries pertains to the at least one updated
fact” and “wherein at least one of the log entries pertains to the action being
initiated” (Appeal Br. A-2 (Claim App.) (claim 8)). See Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant also contends “none of these portions provides any teaching or
suggestion for the admitted deficiencies of Reticular and Fox” and “the
referenced portions of Bowman-Amuah” do not teach or suggest the
disputed limitations. Appeal Br. 18; see Reply Br. 4.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. See
Final Act. 19–20; Ans. 8–9. Appellant simply reiterates the disputed
limitations and concludes Bowman-Amuah does not teach or suggest the
limitations or remedy the deficiencies of Reticular and Fox. As explained by
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

12
the Examiner (see Final Act. 19–20; Ans. 8–9), Bowman-Amuah describes
logging and log entries of a variety of information including facts (network
events), updated facts (faults, hardware failure), and initiated actions
(logging a help desk ticket). See Bowman-Amuah, col. 53, l. 30–col. 54, l.
30; col. 57, ll. 10–30; col. 72, ll. 30–50; col. 83, l. 55–col. 84, l. 5. The
combination of Reticular, Fox, and Bowman-Amuah, with respect to claim
1, teaches “receiving a fact pertaining to a condition,” “asserting the fact to
an inference engine,” “initiating an action in view of the at least one updated
fact,” “making log entries to store log data in a log,” and that “the log entries
pertain[] to at least the fact that has been asserted” (claim 1), none of which
are disputed by Appellant. In view of Bowman-Amuah’s teaching of
logging information, including updated information or facts, and logging
actions (supra), and the Reticular, Fox, and Bowman-Amuah combination’s
teaching of initiating action based on an updated fact (supra), the
combination of Reticular, Fox, and Bowman-Amuah at least suggests the
disputed features of claim 8. As with claim 1 (supra), Appellant does not
address the combination of Reticular, Fox, and Bowman-Amuah. Therefore,
we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 8 for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
2, 4, and 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–8.
Appeal 2019-004075
Application 14/697,490

13
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6–8 103(a) Reticular,
Fox,
Bowman-
Amuah
1, 2, 4, 6–8
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 6–8

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED