Ex Parte Banerjee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201613189063 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/189,063 07/22/2011 Pradipta K. Banerjee IN920110045US1 9456 63638 7590 02/25/2016 STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION (ROC) 13100 WORTHAM CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 245 Suite 245 HOUSTON, TX 77065 EXAMINER OWYANG, MICHELLE N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2168 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2016 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 PRADIPTA K. BANERJEE, PANKAJ S. BAVISHI, and SANKET S. SANGWIKAR ____________________ Appeal 2014-002434 Application 13/189,063 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. Per curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 10, 12–15, and 17–20, which are all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 3, 9, 11, and 16 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed August 6, 2013 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed October 18, 2013 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed May 2, 2013 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed July 22, 2011 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2014-002434 Application 13/189,063 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a database system (data center) for monitoring and dynamically obtaining system management data from a plurality of computer system devices, and selecting the systems management data for storage in a non-relational database or a relational database based on predefined selection criteria. Spec. ¶ 4–5, Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 describes Appellants’ invention and is reproduced below: 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: monitoring a plurality of computer system devices; dynamically obtaining systems management data from the monitored computer system devices; applying predefined selection criteria to select the systems management data to store in a non-relational database; applying the predefined selection criteria to select other systems management data to store in a relational database; selectively storing the systems management data in the non-relational database; and selectively storing the other systems management data in the relational database. App. Br. 17 (Claims Appx.). Examiner’s Rejection3 Claims 1, 4–8, 10, 12–15 and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bell (US Patent No. 8,078,598 B2; 3 Claims 15 and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 5–6. However, Appellants do not appeal the rejection of claims 15 and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C § 101. As such, the § 101 rejection of claims 15 and 17–20 is summarily affirmed. Appeal 2014-002434 Application 13/189,063 3 issued Dec. 13, 2011) and Eidson (US Publication No. 2011/0258178 A1). Final Act. 7–16. Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner’s combination of Bell and Eidson teaches or suggests several limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 6–15. ANALYSIS With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, the Examiner finds Bell discloses an industrial computer-based automation and monitoring system for monitoring a plurality of computer system devices (i.e., independent physical devices w/ client application) and dynamically obtaining system management data from the monitored devices (i.e., “point data”). Final Act. 7 (citing Bell 1:57–60, 3:25–35). The Examiner acknowledges Bell does not explicitly teach, but relies on Eidson for teaching, the remaining steps, i.e., selecting data (e.g., system management data or other system management data) for storage in (1) a relational database or (2) a non-relational database based on predefined selection criteria in order to support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 7– 9 (citing Eidson ¶¶ 38, 47, 57, 59, 60, 62). Appeal 2014-002434 Application 13/189,063 4 Eidson’s Figure 1 is reproduced below: Eidson’s Figure 1 shows a database system (data center) 130 for storing data in (1) a non-relational database 150 and (2) a relational database 155 based on certain criteria. Appellants argue: (1) Bell’s “components” of an industrial computer- based automation and monitoring system is not, and cannot be considered, Appellants’ claimed “computer system devices”; and (2) Bell’s “point data” is not, and cannot be considered, Appellants’ claimed “system management system.” App. Br. 10–11. In addition, Appellants acknowledge Eidson teaches a database system (data center) in which data can be stored in (1) a non-relational database and (2) a relational database. Id. at 8 (citing Eidson ¶¶ 31, 37). However, Appellants argue Eidson fails to disclose “applying predefined selection criteria to select the systems [sic] management data to store in a Appeal 2014-002434 Application 13/189,063 5 non-relational database” or “other systems [sic] management data to store in a relational database.” Id. at 11–15 (citing Eidson ¶¶ 38, 47, 57–58, 60, 62). We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2–9. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided in the Answer. Id. For additional emphasis, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the absence of an explicit definition from Appellants’ Specification, the term “systems [sic] management data” can be broadly interpreted to encompass “any data from computer system devices” including “point data” as disclosed by Bell. Ans. 3–4. Likewise, the term “predefined selection criteria” can be broadly interpreted to encompass “any defined policy or specification on selecting data to store in the non-relational database.” Id. at 4. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, we find the Examiner’s interpretations are reasonable and consistent with Appellants’ own Specification. For the reasons set forth above and in the absence of Appellants’ rebuttal to the Examiner’s findings and explanations, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 and dependent claims 4–7, 10, 12–14 and 17–20, which Appellants do not argue separately. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4–8, 10, 12–15 and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2014-002434 Application 13/189,063 6 DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 10, 12–15 and 17–20. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation