Accretive Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 2, 2021

2021002411 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2021)

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.
14/718,810 05/21/2015 Nabil A. Abu El Ata 3023.1006-001 8983
21005 7590 11/02/2021
HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
530 VIRGINIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 9133
CONCORD, MA 01742-9133
EXAMINER
GOLDBERG, IVAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2021 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):
docketing.department@hbsr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte NABIL A. ABU EL ATA and RUDOLF SCHMANDT
__________

Appeal 2021-002411
Application 14/718,810
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 and 17–19. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Universal Risk
Management LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-002411
Application 14/718,810

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a computer implemented method and a
non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for evaluating
operation of a system architecture. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method for evaluating operation
of a system architecture, comprising:
in a computer processor:
obtaining a multi-layer mathematical model of a system,
layers of the multi-layer model comprising a process layer, an
implementation layer, and a physical layer;
modeling performance metrics of the multi-layer model
under plural sets of operational parameters, said modeling
including dimensions of cost, response time and throughput,
each of the plural sets of operational parameters defining
operational requirements for cost, response time and throughput;
identifying at least one adverse event from a rate of change
in the performance metrics exceeding at least one predetermined
thresholds;
determining an occurrence probability of the system
transitioning from an initial state having an initial set of
operational parameters to each of a plurality of successive states,
each of the plurality of successive states specifying the
operational requirements of a respective one of the plural sets of
operational parameters, the occurrence probability being
calculated based on simulation data of the performance metrics
under the plural sets of operational parameters;
generating a map relating the at least one adverse event to
1) corresponding instances of the operational requirements of the
plural sets of operational parameters and 2) the occurrence
probability of the system transitioning from the initial state to the
successive states;
determining, based on the map, at least one risk for at least
one of the successive states of the system, the at least one risk
defining a probability of an outcome of the system including the
at least one adverse event;
Appeal 2021-002411
Application 14/718,810

3
reporting the at least one risk to a user;
determining at least one remedy, the at least one remedy
identifying a modification to the system architecture to avoid the
at least one risk; and
updating the multi-layer model to incorporate the
modification.

REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Bhattacharya US 2009/0254411 A1 Oct. 8, 2009
Apte US 2012/0016714 A1 Jan. 19, 2012
Abu El Ata US 2012/0197686 A1 Aug. 2, 2012
Juliano Araujo Wickboldt et al., Improving IT Change Management
Processes with Automated Risk Assessment, IEEE INTERNATIONAL
WORKSHOP ON DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS: OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT,
71–84 (2009) (“Wickboldt”).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–11, 13, 14, and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Abu El Ata, Apte, and Wickboldt. Final Act. 4.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Abu El Ata, Apte, Wickboldt, and Bhattacharya. Final Act. 38.

OPINION
Independent claim 1 requires, among other limitations, “generating a
map relating the at least one adverse event to 1) corresponding instances of
the operational requirements of the plural sets of operational parameters and
2) the occurrence probability of the system transitioning from the initial
state to the successive states.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.; emphases
Appeal 2021-002411
Application 14/718,810

4
added). Each of independent claims 17 and 19 incorporates similar
limitations. Id. at 19, 21.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Apte discloses this
claimed subject matter. Final Act. 14–16 (citing Apte ¶¶ 20, 22, 24, 32–34,
37, 39); see also id. at 35, 38.
Appellant contests this finding. Appeal Br. 9. More particularly,
Appellant contends that “Apte teaches a report (e.g., [a] table or list) that
‘depict[s] the likelihood of risk and the impact of risk on a performance
measure.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Apte ¶ 34). Appellant argues, “[t]he
Rejection, at pages 14–15, compares the ‘control limit’ in Apte to the
requirements/goals of ‘operational parameters,’” however, “Apte does not
suggest any map that relates an adverse event to a probability of its system
transitioning from an initial state (having an initial set of ‘control limits’) to
a successive state having a different set of ‘control limits.’” Id. at 11.
Appellant further argues that “a probability of violating a control limit is
entirely different from a probability of transitioning between states with
different control limits” and that in the claims, “[t]he ‘initial state’ is only
recited as ‘having an initial set of operational parameters,’ not an adverse
event” and that “the ‘successive states’ each ‘specify[] the operational
requirements of a respective one of the plural sets of operational
parameters.’” Id. at 11–12. According to Appellant, neither Apte’s risk
nodes nor its performance measures “specify the operational requirements of
a set of operational parameters” and thus, “Apte fails to teach ‘generating a
map’ that include[s] ‘the occurrence probability of the system transitioning
from the initial state to the successive states’ as recited in [] claim 1.” Id. at
12. Further, Appellant argues that “Apte’s Bayesian network 200 [as shown
Appeal 2021-002411
Application 14/718,810

5
in its Figure 2] does not show transitions between multiple different states”
because “Apte’s nodes 202–210 merely represent the probabilities of risks
occurring, and do not represent states having different sets of ‘control
limits.’” Id. at 11–13 (citing Apte ¶ 22, Fig. 2). Appellant then argues:
This fact is further illustrated by Apte’s Fig. 5, which shows a
specific example of a risk network applied to IT infrastructure.
Here, the risk nodes 5001–5008 each correspond to a different
event (e.g., “network failure,” “security breaches”). None of
these nodes relate to different states having different “control
limits” as defined by Apte in paragraph [0032].
. . . .
In contrast, an example of a “map” as recited in
[Appellant’s] claim 1 is shown in [Appellant’s] Fig. 26, where
operational parameters 2610A–N are related to adverse events
2630A–D. In addition, the map also indicates a probability of the
system transitioning from the initial state 2605 to a state
matching each of the operational parameters (depicted by a
percentage at each of the operational parameters 2610A–N).
Id. at 13.
The Examiner responds that “a ‘map’, based on [a] broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, includes an
arrangement similar to the example of FIG. 26 [which shows] ‘operational
requirements’ and ‘probabilities’ of the system transitioning” and,
“[s]imilarly, FIG. 2 of Apte shows probabilities of risk nodes from different
nodes.” Ans. 10; see also id. at 13 (asserting that a map can be just a
correlation and referring to the “table” disclosed in Apte’s paragraph 34).
The Examiner states that Apte was applied for “disclosing how various risk
nodes influence the performance measure and result in a probabilit[y] for a
performance measure.” Id. at 11. The Examiner points out that Apte
discloses that “the risk is also ‘dependent upon the probabilities of the inputs
into a node.’” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Apte ¶ 20). Concerning
Appeal 2021-002411
Application 14/718,810

6
Appellant’s differentiation between the probability of violating a control
limit and the probability of transitioning between states with different
control limits, the Examiner refers to the adverse events 2630A–D shown in
Appellant’s Figure 26, which are described in paragraphs 249 and 258 of the
Specification. Id. at 11–12. The Examiner asserts that “[t]he same adverse
events are identified based on ‘performance metrics exceeding at least one
predetermined threshold.’” Id. at 12 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Spec.
¶ 249). The Examiner also adds that “[t]here is no support identified by
Appellants, nor can [the] Examiner find any support in the specification or
the claims, for arguing that the claims require that ‘the operational
requirements’ also change each time a successive state is reached.” Id. Thus,
the Examiner determines that under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
claim 1 “still includes that each successive state specify ‘operational
requirements’ [which] can be the same ‘operational requirements’ from the
earlier states.” Id. at 12–13. The Examiner then states that “[t]he particular
‘risk node’ [of Apte] is the state reached in FIG. 2.” Id. at 13.
We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a map is an arrangement or a correlation of items. We note,
however, that the Examiner does not explain how the table disclosed in
Apte’s paragraph 34 is part of Apte’s Figure 2, which has the nodes. Thus, to
the extent that Apte’s table disclosed in Apte’s paragraph 34 is a map and
Apte’s Figure 2 with the nodes is also a map, these two maps do not appear
to depict the recited subject matter. Apte’s Figure 2 merely shows various
nodes B, E, A, R, and W or nodes 202, 204, 206, 208, and 210 in which
some nodes accept input(s) from other node(s). Apte ¶ 20, Fig. 2. The
Examiner does not explain how any of the nodes shown in Apte’s Figure 2
Appeal 2021-002411
Application 14/718,810

7
represent recited occurrence probabilities data. Moreover, even if it is true,
as the Examiner asserts, that Apte’s nodes influence the performance
measure and result in probabilities for a performance measure (Ans. 11), that
risk is dependent upon the probabilities of the inputs into a node. Id.
Instead, Appellant’s adverse events are based on predetermined thresholds
(id. at 12), and that “successive states” can specify operational requirements
that can be the same operational requirements from the earlier states. As
such, the Examiner does not explain sufficiently how Apte’s Figure 2 meets
the above-replicated limitation. In other words, Apte’s Figure 2 having
nodes does not show any data for a map, as required for claim 1, which
specifies that the map relates “the at least one adverse event to . . . the
occurrence probability of the system transitioning from the initial state to the
successive state.” The Examiner does not explain sufficiently which items in
Apte’s Figure 2 correspond to an adverse event and an occurrence
probability, and more particularly, “the occurrence probability of the system
transitioning from the initial state to the successive state” as required for
claim 1. Thus, the Examiner fails to establish that Apte discloses the above-
replicated limitation.
As all of the Examiner’s rejections presently before us are predicated
on this incomplete or incorrect finding, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections
on the record presently before us.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

Appeal 2021-002411
Application 14/718,810

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 13,
14, 17–19
103 Abu El Ata, Apte,
Wickboldt
1–11, 13,
14, 17–19
12 103 Abu El Ata, Apte,
Wickboldt,
Bhattacharya
12
Overall
Outcome
1–14, 17–
19

REVERSED