Ex Parte Almeida et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

12729251 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121729,251 03/23/2010 Kiran Joseph ALMEIDA
56436 7590 08/01/2016
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.
82250618 6845
EXAMINER
JHA VER!, JA YESH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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 KIRAN JOSEPH ALMEIDA, VIJI KAKKATTU RA VINDRAN,
and NIRANJAN RAMARAJAR
Appeal2014-008397
Application 12/729,251
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-18, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP,
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
Appeal2014-008397
Application 12/729,251
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to an automatic policy-provisioning method for a
computing system. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 14 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. An automated policy-provisioning method for a
computing system having a service-oriented architecture, the
system comprising at least one managed service and at least one
policy enforcement point operable to enforce a runtime policy
for the service, the method comprising:
using a physical computing device, receiving in machine-
readable form at least one semantic rule defining a condition
imposed by a business policy;
using a physical computing device, receiving machine-
readable data describing a runtime policy enforcement capability
of the at least one policy enforcement point;
using a physical computing device, determining based on
the at least one rule and the capability whether the at least one
policy enforcement point can meet the condition;
using a physical computing device and based on the
determination, deriving a runtime policy suitable for enforcing
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 18, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed August 1, 2014, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed June 3,
2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed December 19, 2013, "Final Act."),
and the Specification (filed September 6, 2012, "Spec.") for their respective
details.
2
Appeal2014-008397
Application 12/729,251
the condition; and
using a physical computing device, communicating the
runtime policy to the at least one policy enforcement point.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Sarukkai et al.
("Sarukkai")
Little
US 2008/0184336 Al
us 2010/0146037
The claims stand rejected as follows:
July 31, 2008
June 10, 2010
1. Claims 1-10 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Sarukkai. Final Act. 16-24.
2. Claims 11and16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Little. Final Act. 16-24.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-18 in light of
Appellants' arguments and are persuaded that the Examiner errs. We
consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal
Brief, pages 12-31.
CLAIMS 1-10 AND 12-15: ANTICIPATION BY SARUKKAI
Appellants contend the cited portions of Sarukkai fail to disclose
"receiving machine-readable data describing a runtime policy enforcement
3
Appeal2014-008397
Application 12/729,251
capability of the at least one policy enforcement point," as recited in Claim
1. App. Br. 12.
The Examiner finds Sarukkai discloses using a physical computing
device, receiving machine-readable data describing a runtime policy
enforcement capability of the at least one policy enforcement point. Final
Act. 16-17 (citing Sarukkai, i1i127-31, 36, 38, and 51). The Examiner finds
this disclosure teaches configuring and integrating the claimed PEPs,
wherein rule enforcing capabilities are associated with each PEP. Id. at 1 7.
Appellants argue the cited passages disclose configuration of the PEP,
but are silent regarding requesting or receiving an indication of the
capabilities of the PEP. App. Br. 13.
The Examiner answers that "[ w ]hen a PEP is configured with rules,
the capabilities of that PEP are defined." Ans. 5. Further, "a 'policy
enforcement capability' of a PEP is construed as the enforced (or to-be-
enforced) set of policy rules that are associated with the PEP." Id.
Appellants reply the accused Claim 1 limitation does not recite
"defined," "configured," or "prepared." Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue the
recitation "receiving machine-readable data describing a runtime policy
enforcement capability of the at least one policy enforcement point," is
disclosed in the Specification: "[t]he PEP may also support functions for
automated discovery of PEP capabilities. That is, the provisioning engine 10
may interrogate each PEP directly, to determine its capabilities." Spec., p. 6,
11. 8-10.
4
Appeal2014-008397
Application 12/729,251
Upon review of the cited portions of Sarukkai, we do not find any
disclosure suggesting a PEP may send data indicative of its capabilities.
Independent Claims 12 and 14 contain recitations commensurate in scope
with the Claim 1 recitation, discussed above. In view thereof, we find
Sarukkai fails to anticipate Claims 1-10 and 12-15.
CLAIMS 11AND16-18: ANTICIPATION BY LITTLE
Similar to the discussion of independent Claim 1, the dispositive
dispute over independent Claim 11 centers over whether Little discloses a
physical computing device that receives machine-readable data describing a
runtime policy enforcement capability of the PEP. With respect to the
disclosure of Little, the Examiner's findings (see Final Act. 24--25; Ans. 25-
28 (citing Little, i-fi-130, 31, 33, and 35)) and Appellants' traversal (see App.
Br. 27-29; Reply Br. 15-17) are substantially similar.
In agreement with Appellants, our review of the cited passages
suggests Little discloses "where the SOA governance infrastructure detects
that a service is not meeting its contractual obligations, it takes corrective
action such as causing the policy management repository to send updates of
PEPs or new PEPs to the service." Little, i135. Our review of the cited
passages fails to find any disclosure relating to interrogating a PEP regarding
its capabilities, or any disclosure suggesting a PEP may send data indicative
of its capabilities. We find Little fails to anticipate Claims 11 or 16-18.
DECISION
5
Appeal2014-008397
Application 12/729,251
The rejections of Claims 1-18 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
6