Ex Parte Banerjee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

13189063 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

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