Ex Parte Becker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2015

11173000 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2015)

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.
11/173,000 07/05/2005 Wolfgang Becker 09432.0042-00000 1954
131475 7590 07/01/2015
Dilworth IP - SAP
2 Corporate Drive, Suite 206
Trumbull, CT 06611
EXAMINER
MAI, KEVIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2015 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 WOLFGANG BECKER
____________________

Appeal 2013-005532
Application 11/173,000
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to an administration log for a
computer system that includes servers and services. (Spec. ¶ 1.) Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
Appeal 2013-005532
Application 11/173,000

2
1. A computer-implemented method of administrating a
computer system of at least one server and a plurality of
services provided by the at least one server, the method
comprising:
receiving input data, wherein the input data describe a
setup change in a server and identify the server, the setup
change comprising at least one of a change in a system file and
a change in a configuration file of the server;
determining, prior to any service failure caused by the
setup change, at least one service of the plurality of services
that is affected by the setup change, wherein the plurality of
services includes an application program for an end user, and
the determining includes analyzing relations between the at
least one server and the at least one service provided by the at
least one server;
writing an entry into a log, wherein the entry includes
identification of the server, identification of the determined
service, the input data that describe the setup change, and
identification of a user responsible for the setup change;
using the log for administrating the system of the server
and the plurality of services, and for providing information for
tracking a service failure to the responsible setup change of a
server, wherein administrating the server is performed
separately from administrating the plurality of services; and
providing, in response to a service failure, information
from the log regarding the setup change and the determined
service, including information that identifies the determined
service and the server, and further including a navigation link to
the input data.

Rejections
Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement. (Final Act. 4–
5 (Feb. 27, 2012).)
Appeal 2013-005532
Application 11/173,000

3
Claims 1–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Aaron (US 2005/0015667 A1, published Jan. 20, 2005), Yip (US 2008/
0196107 A1, published Aug. 14, 2008), and Chen (US 2004/0024767 A1,
published Feb. 5, 2004). (Final Act. 5–16.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 12–19; Reply Br. 2–6). We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contentions. We adopt as our own the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and as set forth by the Examiner in the Answer (see Ans. 14–17). We
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.

Obviousness
Appellant argues:
None of the cited art teaches or suggests determining and
logging an affected service — which is distinct from an affected
server. As a result, no combination of references teaches or
suggests “determining, prior to any service failure caused by the
setup change, at least one service of the plurality of services
that is affected by the setup change,” or “writing an entry into a
log, wherein the entry includes identification of the server,
[and] identification of the determined service,” as recited in
claims 1 and 3. The Examiner correctly states that Aaron does
not disclose this subject matter, but relies on Yip. Final Office
Action, pp. 7-8. Yip does not cure these deficiencies.
(App. Br. 13 (alteration and emphases in original).)
Appeal 2013-005532
Application 11/173,000

4
Appellant agrees Yip “discloses storing ‘a server affected’ (Yip
¶ [0035]).” (App. Br. 13–14.) Appellant’s argument, that Yip’s teachings
relating to servers do not teach the claimed actions involving a service, is
not persuasive of error in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 because it does not
address the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds Yip teaches storing in
a database information identifying “a server affected by a change in the
configuration data” (Final Act. 8 (quoting Yip ¶ 35)), and finds “it would
have been obvious for Yip to also identify services affected by a change in
the configuration data” (id.).
Further, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that “[t]he Final
Office Action also does not explain why it would have been obvious to
modify the references to arrive at the claims in view of these deficiencies.”
(App. Br. 15.) The Examiner relies on Yip’s discussion of the relationship
between servers and services:
In one embodiment of the invention, the topology data
defines a service class, which is a set of services that may be
executed on a particular server. The topology data may also
define a server group, which is a set of servers that execute one
or more services of a particular service class. According to
another embodiment of the invention, a change in configuration
data for a server group may affect one or more servers in the
server group. Likewise, a change in configuration data for a
service class may affect one or more services in the service
class.
(Yip ¶ 26 (cited at Final Act. 8, Ans. 14).) We agree with the Examiner that
“[s]ince Yip also acknowledges that configuration changes can affect
services, it would be obvious for Yip to then perform the same actions for
affected services that Yip performs for affected servers” (Ans. 15). For
further emphasis, we note Yip directly suggests that teachings relating to
Appeal 2013-005532
Application 11/173,000

5
servers apply to services also because Yip teaches “the client may be a
server, a service, an application program, or an operating system
component,” and expressly states that “a server executing a service is used
as a particular example of the client for illustration purposes” (Yip ¶ 25).
We agree with the Examiner that applying Yip’s teachings to services
results in determining, prior to any service failure caused by the setup
change, at least one service of the plurality of services that is affected by the
setup change, as recited in claims 1 and 3, because Yip’s record of “a server
affected by a change in the configuration data” (id. ¶ 35) “is made at the
time the change is made” (Ans. 15 (citing Yip ¶ 35)). When combined with
the logging system of Aaron (see Final Act. 7, 9), the method includes
writing an entry into a log, wherein the entry includes identification of the
server and identification of the determined service, as recited in claims 1 and
3.
Appellant further argues “none of the cited references teaches or
suggests logging a link to the input data used for a setup change.” (App. Br.
16.) Appellant states “[t]he Examiner correctly acknowledges that Aaron
and Yip do not disclose this subject matter,” and argues “Chen does not cure
the deficiency because it discloses linking to ‘computer service information’
rather than the ‘input data,’ as claimed.” (App. Br. 16.) The premise of
Appellant’s argument fails, however, because the Examiner finds Aaron
teaches providing input data (see Final Act. 7 (citing Aaron Fig. 5B)), and
states only that Aaron “does not explicitly disclose further including a
navigation link” (id. at 9 (emphasis omitted)). (See also Ans. 16.) We agree
with the Examiner that Chen teaches providing a link to more information in
an event management system (see Final Act. 10 (citing Chen ¶ 25)), and that
Appeal 2013-005532
Application 11/173,000

6
it would have been obvious to include a navigation link to the input data
taught in Aaron (see id.; Ans. 16). Appellant’s argument regarding Chen
alone does not address the combined teachings of Aaron, Yip, and Chen
relied on by the Examiner, and “one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
In light of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aaron, Yip, and Chen. For
the same reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
dependent claims 2 and 4–10, which are not argued separately (see App. Br.
17).

Written Description
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the Specification does
not support the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 4, which recite that
writing of the entry into the log includes writing information into a plurality
of tables. (App. Br. 17.) Appellant cites Figure 4 and paragraph 22 of the
Specification in support (id.), but the Examiner finds the cited portions of
the Specification have “no discussion of tables and how information is
written into them” (Ans. 17).
Appeal 2013-005532
Application 11/173,000

7
Figure 4 of the Specification is reproduced below:

Figure 4 shows an example of a log.
Paragraph 22 of the Specification states that log 401 shown in Figure
4 has two entries. These entries include, among other things, “a navigation
link 414 for accessing received setup change data 413.” (Spec. ¶ 22.)
We agree with Appellant that Figure 4 of the Specification appears to
show at least one table, but Appellant does not present persuasive arguments
Appeal 2013-005532
Application 11/173,000

8
or evidence that data 420 at the bottom of Figure 4, which can be displayed
in a separate window (Spec. ¶ 22), is also a table. Appellant implicitly
acknowledges as much in arguing the setup change data in the example are
not stored in the table with the entries at the top of Figure 4, “and must be
stored elsewhere, such as in a different table” (App. Br. 17 (emphasis
added)).
Appellant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that information may be written into multiple tables in the
example of FIG. 4.” (Id. at 17–18.) In evaluating the adequacy of the
disclosure in meeting the written description requirement, “the test for
sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en
banc). Although “factors for evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure” can
“includ[e] ‘the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and
content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the
predictability of the aspect at issue,’” id. (quoting Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d
1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (second alteration in original)), Appellant’s
argument is not supported by persuasive evidence relating to these factors.
The disputed limitations did not appear in claims 2 and 4 as originally filed
(see Spec. 11–12), and, therefore, we do not presume that the written
description is adequate to support them. In view of the Examiner’s
identification of the lack of support in the written description for writing
information into a plurality of tables, as recited in amended claims 2 and 4,
Appeal 2013-005532
Application 11/173,000

9
we conclude that a preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is affirmed.
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
tj