Ex Parte Barkol et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13274918 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/274,918 10/17/2011 OmerBARKOL
56436 7590 09/02/2016
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.
82841900 9466
EXAMINER
DAV ANLOU, SOHEILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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 OMER BARKOL, SHARAR GOLAN, RUTH BERGMAN,
YIP AT FELDER, ARIK SITYON, MOHAMMED J. ZAKI, and PRANA Y
ANCHURI
Appeal2015-002694 1
Application 13/274,918
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002694
Application 13/274,918
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims.
Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to "a method for discovering
representative composite configuration item (CI) patterns in an IT system."
Abstract. Claims 1, 2, and 4 are representative and reproduced below, with
emphasis added to the disputed elements:
1. A method for discovering representative composite
configuration item (CI) patterns in an Information Technology
(IT) system that includes a plurality of configuration items, the
method comprising:
data mining a graph representing the IT system to extract
composite CI patterns;
clustering the composite CI patterns into clusters based
on similarity between the composite CI patterns;
extracting a representative composite CI pattern for each
of the clusters; and
using an output device, outputting the representative
composite CI pattern for each of the clusters.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the composite CI
patterns comprise maximal frequent composite CI patterns.
2
Appeal2015-002694
Application 13/274,918
4. The method of claim 1, further compnsmg pruning
attributes of Cls in the graph and disregarding the pruned
attributes.
Appeal Br. 21-22. (Claims App.).
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 10-17, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kowalski (US 2011/0295788 Al,
published Dec. 1, 2011) in view of Hellman et al. (US 2005/0060287 Al,
published Mar. 17, 2005). Final Act. 6.
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kowalski in view of Hellman, and further in view of
Chander et al. (US 2009/0125977 Al, published May 14, 2009). Final
Act. 15.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kowalski in view of Hellman; and further in view of
Arasu et al. (US 2009/0210418 Al, published Aug. 20, 2009). Final
Act. 16.
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kowalski in view of Hellman, and further in view of
Cristianini (US 7,299,213, issued Nov. 20, 2007). Final Act. 17-18.
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1 and 5-20
Appellants argue that the combination of Kowalski and Hellman fails
to teach or suggest "data mining a graph representing the IT system to
extract composite CI patterns," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10-11;
3
Appeal2015-002694
Application 13/274,918
Reply Br. 3-7. As argued by Appellants, paragraph 30 of Kowalski merely
describes that data in a configuration management database (CMDB) can be
represented graphically with configuration items (Cis) as nodes or vertices
and relationships forming the edges, and Kowalski fails to disclose either a
composite CI pattern or data mining a graph representing an IT system to
extract composite CI patterns. Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellants additionally
argue that Kowalski teaches documented relationships among components in
a database that can be used to produce a graph, as opposed to starting with a
graph of the IT system and using the graph to extract composite CI patterns
(i.e., "data mining a graph representing the IT system to extract composite
CI patterns"). Reply Br. 3--4, 6-7.
We do not find this argument persuasive. Contrary to Appellants'
argument, we agree with the Examiner that Kowalski teaches data mining a
graph representing an IT system because Kowalski teaches traversing a
CMDB relationship graph and retrieving a set of related Cis. See Kowalski
i-fi-121-22, 30. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Kowalski's set of
related Cis teaches the claimed "composite CI pattern," because neither
Appellants' specification, nor Appellants' claims, defines "composite CI
pattern" in a manner that distinguishes from Kowalski's set of related Cis.
See, e.g., Spec. i-f 13 (disclosing only that a set of Cis can be considered a
composite CI). Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Kowalski and Hellman teaches or suggests "data
mining a graph representing the IT system to extract composite CI patterns."
Appellants also argue that the combination of Kowalski and Hellman
fails to teach or suggest "clustering the composite CI patterns into clusters
based on similarity between the composite CI patterns," and "extracting a
4
Appeal2015-002694
Application 13/274,918
representative composite Cl pattern for each of the clusters," as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 7-9. As argued by Appellants,
Kowalski fails to teach extracting a representative composite CI pattern for
each of the clusters, because: (a) Kowalski fails to teach either composite CI
patterns or clusters of composite CI patterns; and (b) Kowalski's query result
is not representative of anything. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 8. According to
Appellants, Kowalski describes that the query result includes a set of related
Cis, and a set of related Cis is not the same as a composite CI pattern, which
groups a number of different Cis into a single functional unit. Appeal
Br. 12-13. Appellants further argue that paragraphs 34--36 of Hellman teach
clustering database search results, not Cis or composite CI patterns. Appeal
Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 8.
We do not find this argument persuasive. More specifically,
regarding Appellants' argument that Kowalski fails to teach a "composite CI
pattern," as previously discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that
Kowalski's set of related Cis teaches the claimed "composite CI pattern."
Further, regarding Appellants' argument that Kowalski fails to teach a
"representative composite CI pattern for each of the clusters," and that
Hellman fails to teach "clustering the composite CI patterns into clusters,"
Appellants' argument attacks the cited references individually, rather than
the Examiner's combination of the references. 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 & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
5
Appeal2015-002694
Application 13/274,918
the art in light of the combined teachings of the references. See Jn re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
More specifically, Appellants' argument fails to rebut the Examiner's
finding that Kowalski teaches extracting a composite CI pattern (i.e., a set of
related Cis) from a graph, and that Hellman teaches clustering elements of a
data graph into clusters according to connected elements (i.e., similarity of
elements). Final Act. 7-9; Ans. 4---6. Appellants' argument also fails to
rebut the Examiner's finding that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the CMDB query system taught by
Kowalski to include the clustering feature taught by Hellman, so that
Kowalski's CMDB query system would cluster the composite CI patterns
(i.e., sets of related Cis) extracted from a graph based on similarity between
the composite CI patterns and extract a representative composite CI pattern
for each of the clusters. Final Act. 9; Ans. 6. Thus, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kowalski and Hellman
teaches or suggests "clustering the composite CI patterns into clusters based
on similarity between the composite CI patterns" and "extracting a
representative composite CI pattern for each of the clusters."
Appellants argue that the combination of Kowalski and Hellman fails
to teach or suggest "using an output device, outputting the representative
composite CI pattern for each of the clusters," as recited in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 14. As argued by Appellants, Hellman fails to teach a composite CI
pattern, and thus, also fails to teach using an output device to output
representative composite CI patterns for each of the clusters. Id.
We do not find this argument persuasive. Appellants' argument is
predicated on its previous argument that the combination of Kowalski and
6
Appeal2015-002694
Application 13/274,918
Hellman fails to teach or suggest a "representative composite Cl pattern."
However, as discussed previously above, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kowalski and Hellman teaches
or suggests a "representative composite CI pattern." Thus, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kowalski
and Hellman teaches or suggests "using an output device, outputting the
representative composite CI pattern for each of the clusters."
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 12, and 16. We further sustain the rejection of claims 5-11, 13-15,
and 17-20, not argued separately.
B. Claims 2-3
Appellants argue that the combination of Kowalski and Hellman fails
to teach or suggest "wherein the composite CI patterns comprise maximal
frequent composite CI patterns," as recited in claim 2. Appeal Br. 18; Reply
Br. 12. As argued by Appellants, Hellman teaches clustering search results
of a database search engine rather than clustering composite CI patterns, and
thus Hellman also fails to teach maximal frequent composite CI patterns. Id.
We do not find this argument persuasive. Appellants' argument is
predicated on Appellants' argument regarding claim 1, which we have found
unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed above. Thus, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kowalski and
Hellman teaches or suggests "wherein the composite CI patterns comprise
maximal frequent composite CI patterns." Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 2. We further sustain the rejection of claim 3,
not argued separately.
7
Appeal2015-002694
Application 13/274,918
C. Claim 4
Appellants argue that the combination of Kowalski and Hellman fails
to teach or suggest "pruning attributes of Cis in the graph and disregarding
the pruned attributes," as recited in claim 4. Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 12-
13. As argued by Appellants, Hellman teaches clustering search results of a
database search engine rather than clustering composite CI patterns, and
thus, Hellman also fails to teach pruning attributes from a CI. Id.
We find this argument persuasive. We conclude that nothing in the
cited paragraph of Hellman teaches pruning of attributes, and thus, the
Examiner has not shown how Hellman teaches pruning attributes.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv)
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8