Asheesh Kumar et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2019

14082427 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2019)

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.
14/082,427 11/18/2013 Asheesh Kumar IN920130174US1 9962
30449 7590 11/04/2019
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
EXAMINER
ULLAH, ARIF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2019 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):
30449@IPLAWUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ASHEESH KUMAR, RAMESH CHANDRA PATHAK
and SURYANARAYANA K. RAO1
___________

Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427
Technology Center 3600

____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JEFFREY S. SMITH and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1−8 and 10−20
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. Appeal Brief 1.
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

2

Introduction
The invention is directed to a “method for determining a health of an
account, identifying risks in the account, assessing the impact of the risks,
and suggesting a remediation action and in particular to a method and
associated system for providing a remedy based on account health
determination.” Specification 1.

Representative Claim
1. A hardware component health improvement method
comprising:
retrieving, by a computer processor of an integrated
mechanism computing system of an IT infrastructure from a
plurality of endpoint hardware components of said IT
infrastructure, metrics associated with a customer account of a
customer, wherein said metrics identify root
causes for unresolved incidents and events affecting said
endpoint hardware components, wherein said endpoint
hardware components comprise databases, operating systems,
middleware, virtual machines, hardware storage arrays, backup
servers, and hardware network components, and wherein each
of said computing system and said endpoint hardware
components comprises a particular configuration of hardware;
categorizing, by said computer processor, a performance,
an availability, monitoring, capacity management, and
component hygiene of said metrics for said endpoint hardware
components;
identifying, by said computer processor, incident
symptom markers comprising unique markers associated with
each of said unresolved incidents;
identifying, by said computer processor, root cause
markers comprising markers associated with each of said root
causes;
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

3

determining, by said computer processor based on said
incident symptom markers and said root cause markers, a level
of dependency between said endpoint hardware components;
generating, by said computer processor based on said
categorizing, aggregated metrics from said metrics with respect
to said plurality of endpoint hardware components;
generating, by said computer processor, additional
aggregated metrics from metrics associated with additional
accounts of said customer, wherein said additional aggregated
metrics are aggregated with respect to additional endpoint
hardware components, and wherein said additional aggregated
metrics identify root causes for additional unresolved incidents
and events affecting said additional endpoint hardware
components;
storing, by said computer processor within a repository
data storage warehouse as a time series comprising values
occurring at a time of each of said events, said aggregated
metrics and said additional aggregated metrics with respect to a
specified technology, a database, and a storage system, wherein
said repository data storage warehouse stores said aggregated
metrics and said additional aggregated metrics in accordance
with an overall view presentation with respect to said specified
technology, said database, and said storage system;
retrieving, by said computer processor, said aggregated
metrics and said additional aggregated metrics;
applying, by said computer processor executing a
weighting engine, weighting factors to said aggregated metrics
and said additional aggregated metrics, wherein said weighting
factors are associated with criticality and importance factors;
calculating, by said computer processor based on said
weighting factors applied to said aggregated metrics and said
additional aggregated metrics, overall health and risk scores for
said customer account and said additional accounts with respect
to specified platforms and additional
platforms, wherein said overall health and risk scores are
associated with specified time periods;
determining, by said computer processor, incident
markers for specified incidents and events affecting said
plurality of endpoint hardware components, wherein said
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

4

specified incidents and events comprise hardware performance
incidents and events and hardware monitoring incidents and
events;
determining, by said computer processor, based on said
incident markers, root causes of said specified incidents and
events;
parsing, by said computer processor, said specified
incidents and events with respect to a historical database;
automatically generating, by said computer processor
based on said root causes and results of said parsing, technical
remediation recommendations and actions for said specified
incidents and events affecting said endpoint hardware
components; and
providing, via said IT infrastructure and based on said
technical remediation recommendations and actions, support,
maintenance, and integration of said endpoint hardware
components thereby implementing a health improvement
process with respect to systems, subsystems, applications,
middleware, and additional dependent components and
subcomponents of said IT infrastructure, wherein said health
improvement process comprises maintaining said databases,
operating systems, middleware, virtual machines, hardware
storage arrays, backup servers, and hardware network
components.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1−8 and 10−20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Final
Action 11–19.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13−15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (US Patent Application Publication
2011/0082719 A1; published April 7, 2011), Albrecht (US Patent
Application Publication 2008/0109257 A1; published May 8, 2000), Sailer
(US Patent Application Publication 2010/0318846 A1; published December
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

5

16, 2010), Kloeffer (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0168874 A1;
published July 19, 2007), Furem (US Patent 7,181,370 B2; issued February
20, 2007), Castellani (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0192970 A1;
published July 10, 2014) and Zimmerman (US Patent Application
Publication 2016/0012081 A1; published January 14, 2016). Final Action
20–52.
Claims 2−6, 12 and 16−19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dutta, Albrecht, Sailer, Kloeffer, Furem, Castellani,
Zimmerman and Kini (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0072781 A1;
published March 22, 2012). Final Action 52–69.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 8, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
March 5, 2018), the Final Action (mailed April 10, 2017) and the Answer
(mailed January 4, 2018), for the respective details.
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
The Examiner determines that claims 1−8 and 10−20 are directed to
patent ineligible subject matter because independent claims 1, 15 and 20 are
“directed to a method and CRM for collecting and determining account risk
and remediation information (analogous to collecting information, analyzing
it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis).” Final
Action 11; see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217
(2014) (describing the two-step framework “for distinguishing patents that
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

6

claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.”).
After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this
case, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Memorandum”). Under the Memorandum,
the Office first looks to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain
methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental
economic principles and practice, commercial or legal
interactions, managing personal behavior, relationships,
interpersonal interactions, (c) mental processes; and

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. 2018).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Unless
otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

7

our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis and clarification
with respect to the Memorandum.
Alice/Mayo—Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Step 2A–Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the Revised Guidance
Step 2A, Prong One
“Appellants assert that claims 1, 15, and 20 are directed to ‘A
hardware component health improvement method’ (A) as recited in the
preamble of claims 1, 15, and 20; and (B) as expressed in the body of claims
1, 15 and 20.” Appeal Brief 15. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea. Final Action 11–16. Appellants’ Abstract
states, “A method and system for determining account health, identifying
and rating hidden and visible risks, and identifying remediation actions in
response to identified risks and as a means to improve account health scores
is provided. The method includes retrieving metrics associated with a
customer account of a customer.”
The Specification discloses:
System 100 enables a method for providing a consolidated
account health assessment involving a combination of root cause
analysis, a risk assessment, skill gap identification, and remedial
action recommendation with respect to large scale data. The
method for providing a consolidated account health assessment
and risk identification includes performing a consolidated
assessment comprising a combination of root cause analysis, risk
assessment, skill gap identification, and remedial action
recommendation on large scale data by collecting metrics during
the occurrence of events across multiple services and identifying
matching metrics across the events to provide suitable solutions.
Specification 4–5.
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

8

Claim 1 recites a “hardware component health improvement method”
wherein:
1. retrieving, by a computer processor of an integrated mechanism
computing system of an IT infrastructure from a plurality of endpoint
hardware components of said IT infrastructure, metrics associated
with a customer account of a customer, wherein said metrics identify
root causes for unresolved incidents and events affecting said
endpoint hardware components;
2. categorizing, by said computer processor, a performance, an
availability, monitoring, capacity management, and component
hygiene of said metrics for said endpoint hardware components;
3. identifying, by said computer processor, incident symptom markers
comprising unique markers associated with each of said unresolved
incidents;
4. identifying, by said computer processor, root cause markers
comprising markers associated with each of said root causes;
5. determining, by said computer processor based on said incident
symptom markers and said root cause markers, a level of dependency
between said endpoint hardware components;
6. generating, by said computer processor based on said categorizing,
aggregated metrics from said metrics with respect to said plurality of
endpoint hardware components;
7. generating, by said computer processor, additional aggregated metrics
from metrics associated with additional accounts of said customer,
wherein said additional aggregated metrics are aggregated with
respect to additional endpoint hardware components, and wherein said
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

9

additional aggregated metrics identify root causes for additional
unresolved incidents and events;
8. applying, by said computer processor executing a weighting engine,
weighting factors to said aggregated metrics and said additional
aggregated metrics, wherein said weighting factors are associated with
criticality and importance factors;
9. calculating, by said computer processor based on said weighting
factors applied to said aggregated metrics and said additional
aggregated metrics, overall health and risk scores for said customer
account and said additional accounts with respect to specified
platforms and additional platforms, wherein said overall health and
risk scores are associated with specified time periods;
10. determining, by said computer processor, incident markers for
specified incidents and events affecting said plurality of endpoint
hardware components, wherein said specified incidents and events
comprise hardware performance incidents and events and hardware
monitoring incidents and events;
11. determining, by said computer processor, based on said incident
markers, root causes of said specified incidents and events;
12. parsing, by said computer processor, said specified incidents and
events with respect to a historical database;
13. automatically generating, by said computer processor based on said
root causes and results of said parsing, technical remediation
recommendations and actions for said specified incidents and events
affecting said endpoint hardware components; and
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

10

14. providing, via said IT infrastructure and based on said technical
remediation recommendations and actions, support, maintenance, and
integration of said endpoint hardware components thereby
implementing a health improvement process with respect to systems,
subsystems, applications, middleware, and additional dependent
components and subcomponents of said IT infrastructure, wherein
said health improvement process comprises maintaining said
databases, operating systems, middleware, virtual machines, hardware
storage arrays, backup servers, and hardware network components.

The claim recites the abstract idea of employing mental processes —
concepts performed in the human mind including observance and evaluation.
See Memorandum, Section I (Groupings of Abstract Ideas); Final Action 12;
see also Specification 5 (“The method for providing a consolidated account
health assessment and risk identification includes performing a consolidated
assessment comprising a combination of root cause analysis, risk
assessment, skill gap identification, and remedial action recommendation . . .
identifying matching metrics across the events to provide suitable
solutions.”); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838
F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer
implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose
them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”).
Therefore, we conclude the claims recite an abstract idea pursuant to
Step 2A, Prong One of the guidance. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(1)
(Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception).

Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

11

Step 2A, Prong Two
Under Prong Two of the Revised Guidance, we must determine
“whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception
into a practical application of the exception” it is noted that a “claim that
integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on,
or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on
the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Memorandum, Section
III(A)(2).
Appellant lists a multitude of claim 1’s limitations (steps) and argue
that the steps, “improve the [recited hardware] components and [the] IT
system [that] pertains to what claims 1, 15, and 20 are directed to; the other
steps pertain to what claims 1, 15, and 20 involve and is thus irrelevant to
the issue of whether the claims 1, 15, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea,
based on Enfish.” Appeal Brief 18. Appellant argues, “that claims 1, 15,
and 20 do not merely recite collecting, analyzing, and displaying
information (as alleged by the Examiner)” and “contend that the claimed
component health improvement process (of Appellant’s claims) that results
in an IT system technology improvement that includes: identifying
incidents, events, and associated unique (digital) markers affecting endpoint
hardware components; specialized repository view based storage; and a
hardware component maintenance process does not involve any type of
process for merely collecting, analyzing, and displaying information.”
Appeal Brief 19–20; see Final Action 11–12.
Appellant further contends:
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

12

[T]he Examiner has incorrectly concluded that “the term “health”
is unclear. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation,
improving health can be towards improving the business process
rather than any physical improvement” as Appellants argue that
the claims as amended clearly describe a fully supported health
improvement process for maintaining hardware components and
not a business process as alleged by the Examiner as supported
on page 8 of the specification as follows: “end point components
contracted by the IT infrastructure services provider to support
and maintain”. Appellants contend that the term “maintenance”
with respect to hardware comprises a modification of software or
hardware to correct faults to improve performance to adapt to a
changed environment.
Appeal Brief 21 (emphasis added).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. The recited
limitations do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer
or other technology or technical field. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at
55; cf. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, No. 2017-2257, 2019 WL
1716242, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2019) (“This invention makes the trader
faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution
to a technical problem.”). Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a
“claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even
assuming the technique claimed was “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even
brilliant,” that would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent
eligible. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569
U.S. 576, 591 (2013).
Furthermore, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive
because the claimed method merely identifies incidents and events that
occur within the claimed components and subsequently provides
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

13

maintenance of the claimed components based upon technical remediation
recommendations and generated actions. See Appeal Brief 232; see also
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“[W]e find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an
improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract
idea . . . the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database)
or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which
computers are invoked merely as a tool.”).
Subsequently, we find the claim in the instant application is more akin
to the claims the Federal Circuit found ineligible in OIP Technologies3 than

2 “[T]hat a component health improvement method that includes identifying
incidents, events, and associated unique (digital) markers or keys (not able to
be performed on the human mind) affecting endpoint hardware components;
enabling specialized repository view based storage; and maintaining
hardware components based on generated actions does not merely comprise
collecting, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis of data as alleged by the Examiner.”
Appeal Brief 23.

3 Like the claims in Mayo, which added only the routine steps of
administering medication and measuring metabolite levels for the purposes
of determining optimal dosage, here the addition of steps to test prices and
collect data based on customer reactions does not add any meaningful
limitations to the abstract idea. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297–98; see also Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2357 (“‘Simply appending conventional steps, specified at a
high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ to supply an ‘inventive
concept.’”) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294); see also
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716 (“[T]he steps of consulting and updating an
activity log represent insignificant ‘data-gathering steps,’ ... and thus add
nothing of practical significance to the underlying abstract idea.”) (Citations
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

14

the claims found eligible in Classen4 because the claim merely gathers and
collect information in a well-known manner thus failing to provide a
meaningful limitation on the abstract idea. See OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363−1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also
M.P.E.P 2106.05 (e).
Consequently, we detect no additional element (or combination of
elements) recited in Appellant’s representative claim 1 that integrates the
judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section
III(A)(2). For example, Appellant’s claimed additional elements (e.g.,
endpoint hardware components) do not: (1) improve the functioning of a
computer or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular
machine (except for a generic IT infrastructure); (3) do not effect a
transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not
applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the
claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h); see also Memorandum 55,
notes 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly
every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage

omitted).

4 Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (decision on remand from the Supreme Court, which had vacated the
lower court’s prior holding of ineligibility in view of Bilski v. Kappos, 561
U.S. 593 (2010)).

Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

15

unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission
functions required by the method claims”).
Accordingly, we determine the claim does not integrate the recited
judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section
III(A)(2) (Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate
Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application).

Alice/Mayo—Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
Step 2B identified in the Revised Guidance
Step 2B
Next, we determine whether the claim includes additional elements
that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby
providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72–73).
Appellant contends, “[T]hat a person cannot determine a level of
dependency between hardware/software components as Appellants argue
that determining hardware component dependencies involves the use of
complex machine implemented algorithms” and therefore “Appellants
contend that the claimed hardware component health improvement method
does not merely comprise an idea of itself and therefore does amount to
significantly more than an abstract idea.”
Appeal Brief 21−22.
The Examiner finds, “[I]mproving health can be towards improving
the business process rather than any physical improvement, which would not
constitute as ‘significantly more.’” Final Action 17.

Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

16

We find that claim 1 does not include a specific limitation or a
combination of elements that amounts to significantly more than the judicial
exception itself. See Memorandum, Section III(B)(Step 2B: If the Claim Is
Directed to a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an
Inventive Concept); see also Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software,
Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“the ‘inventive concept’ cannot
be the abstract idea itself”). Other than the abstract idea itself, the remaining
claim elements only recite generic computer components that are well-
understood, routine and conventional. See Final Action 17 (“The method
and system, as claimed by the [Appellant], is no more than a general linking
of the use of the abstract idea (using generic computers to implement an idea
of itself) to a particular technological environment (the use of computers to
organize and determine data). The recitation of well-known computer
functions does not meet the ‘significantly more’ threshold.”); see also Alice,
573 U.S. at 226.
Accordingly, we conclude claims 1−8 and 10−20 are directed to the
abstract idea of employing mental processes to observe, evaluate and render
a judgment/opinion; and further conclude, the claims do not recite
limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
We sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims 1−8 and 10−20.

35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Appellant argues, “[T]he Examiner has not provided a location in any
of the cited prior art that illustrates Appellants claimed feature of: markers
associated with root causes and/or incidences affecting hardware and
software components” and Appellant further asserts the Examiner’s reliance
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

17

upon Sailer’s paragraphs 9–13 is not proper because “Sailer mentions a true
root but is totally silent with respect to incident markers for
endpoint hardware components.” Appeal Brief 44. We do not find
Appellant’s arguments persuasive because the arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim 1 recites, “identifying, by said computer processor, incident
symptom markers comprising unique markers associated with each of said
unresolved incidents; identifying, by said computer processor, root cause
markers comprising markers associated with each of said root causes.”
Appellant’s Specification discloses, “Internal functional view 200 comprises
the following markers: an incident symptom marker and a root cause
marker. An incident symptom marker comprises a unique marker associated
with each incident. A root cause marker of an incident is expressed as a non-
linear model depending on a number of variants.” Specification 10; see
Appeal Brief 2–3. Sailer discloses in the Abstract, “Historical problem data
is labeled with the cause of that problem and is analyzed to learn problem
patterns. The historical problem data is classified into a predefined
hierarchical structure of taxonomies by using an incremental online learning
algorithm.” Sailer further discloses:
Problem determination and resolution (PDR) is the process of
detecting anomalies in a monitored system, locating the
problems responsible for the issue, determining the root cause of
the problem and fixing the cause of the problem. Thus,
identifying the type of problem and the cause of the problem are
important aspects in searching for the relevant fix.
Sailer, paragraph 4.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Sailer discloses the
markers as claimed because neither the Specification nor the disputed claim
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

18

limitations distinguishes the markers from Sailer’s markers. See Final
Action 27–30.
Appellant argues, “Castellani (paragraph 0063) merely teaches
dependencies between KPI [Key Performance Indicators] data and therefore
the aforementioned specialized hardware component dependency levels of
Appellants claims patentable distinguish Appellants claims from the cited
prior art.” Appeal Brief 46. Claim 1 recites, “determining, by said computer
processor based on said incident symptom markers and said root cause
markers, a level of dependency between said endpoint hardware
components.” Appellant contends support for the recited limitation can be
found on pages 12 (“3. Level of dependency between an affected end point
and related end points (d).”) and 13 (“B. Allocating importance factors to the
metrics from dependent end points depending on an end point type a level of
dependency.”) of the Specification. Appeal Brief 3.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because the
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. We agree
with the Examiner’s findings that Castellani discloses the claimed
dependencies because neither the Specification nor the disputed claim
limitations distinguishes the claimed dependencies from Castellani’s
dependencies. See Final Action 38–39.
Appellant contends the combination of references “does not even
suggest any time related functions associated with any type of events” and
argues:
[T]hat Zimmerman merely teaches metadata snapshots (of an IT
environment) with time record storage (i.e., differing from
aggregated metrics being stored as a time series associated with
hardware component event times) and therefore the
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

19

aforementioned aggregated metrics being stored as a time series
of Appellants claims patentable distinguish Appellants claims
from the cited prior art.
Appeal Brief 53.
Appellant discloses support for the claimed time related functions are
found on page 9 of the Specification, lines 1–10. Appeal Brief 2 (“The
aggregated metrics and the additional aggregated metrics are stored within a
repository data storage warehouse as a time series comprising values
occurring at a time of each of the events.”). The Specification discloses:
The dashboards are based on actual statistical and point-in
time data stored in metrics warehouse repository 110 to
determine exact underlying metrics that contributed to an
associated rating thereby providing the ability to generate
informed metric-based decisions as where to direct remedial
actions and resources to achieve greatest overall rating
improvements.
Specification, lines 6–9.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Claim 1 recites,
“storing, by said computer processor within a repository data storage
warehouse as a time series comprising values occurring at a time of each of
said events.” Zimmerman discloses:
For example, the system may take multiple snapshots of
metadata in the local IT environment at different points in time
and thereby derive multiple instances of the relationship model
at different points in time. The system may store a record the time
at which each snapshot was taken so that the time of each
snapshot may be used in subsequent processing.
Zimmerman ¶ 28.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Zimmerman discloses the
claimed time related functions because neither the Specification nor the
Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

20

disputed claim limitation distinguishes the claimed time related functions
from Zimmerman’s time related functions. See Final Action 40.
Appellant contends that:
Dutta in view of Albrecht, Sailer, Kloeffer, Furem, Castellani,
and Zimmerman does not even suggest maintaining any specific
types of components such as operating systems, middleware,
virtual machines, storage arrays and/or network components (as
claimed by Appellants) as Appellants contend that Zimmerman
(i.e., as per Examiner’s rejection with respect to Applicant’s
“health improvement” and “maintenance” limitation) does not
specify maintaining or performing actions to any type of
specified components.
Appeal Brief 54.
“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)).
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive and agree
with the Examiner’s findings that Zimmerman discloses a variety of
components. See Final Action 42–43 (citing Zimmerman, paragraph 64).
Further, the Examiner relied upon other references such as Dutta, Albrecht
and Sailer to disclose the health improvement and maintenance aspect of the
claimed invention and not Zimmerman. See Final Action 20–34.
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent
claims 1, 15 and 20, as well as, dependent claims 2–7, 10–14 and 16–19, not
argued separately with distinction.

Appeal 2018-004076
Application 14/082,427

21

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–20 101 1–8, 10–20
1, 7, 8, 10,
11, 13−15,
20
103 Dutta, Albrecht,
Sailer, Kloeffer,
Furem, Castellani,
Zimmerman
1, 7, 8, 10,
11, 13−15,
20

2−6, 12,
16−19
103 Dutta, Albrecht,
Sailer, Kloeffer,
Furem, Castellani,
Zimmerman, Kini
2−6, 12,
16−19

Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10–20

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED