Ex Parte Cao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

14051842 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

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.
14/051,842 10/11/2013 Bin Cao ROC920130189US1 1001
46296 7590 02/01/2018
MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
P.O. BOX 548
CARTHAGE, MO 64836-0548
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THUONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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):
derekm@ideaprotect.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BIN CAO, XI LUN CHEN, and XIAO BIN ZHANG
(Applicant: International Business Machines Corporation)
Appeal 2017-009219
Application 14/051,842
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 9-18, all claims currently pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2017-009219
Application 14/051,842
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “deploying cloud-based
computing solutions to a cloud computing environment.” Spec. 12. Claim
9, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
9. A computer-implemented method executed by at least one
processor for providing a computing solution, the method
comprising:
providing a boot device that comprises a computer
readable non-transitory storage that includes a boot image that
comprises:
boot code executed by the at least one processor
that initializes the apparatus;
requirements for the computing solution that
include at least one software application and business
logic;
a system verification and integration mechanism;
and
a building and integration mechanism;
booting a computer system from the bootable image on the
boot device;
the system verification and integration mechanism
comparing available hardware and software with the
requirements for the computing solution and determining
computing resources from the available hardware and software
that meet the requirements for the computing solution; and
the building and integration mechanism automatically
provisioning the computing resources with the at least one
software application and the business logic without intervention
of a human user to provide the computing solution.
App. Br. 33 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2017-009219
Application 14/051,842
REJECTIONS1
Claims 9, 10, and 14—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Martinez et al. (US 2008/0126773 Al; published
May 29, 2008) (“Martinez”) and Miller et al. (US 2006/0107119 Al;
published May 18, 2006) (“Miller”). Ans. 4.
Claims 11 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martinez, Miller, and Zhang et al. (US 2014/0282483 Al;
published Sept. 18, 2014) (“Zhang”). Ans. 10.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martinez, Miller, and Plache et al. (US 2011/0022192 Al;
published Jan. 27, 2011) (“Plache”). Ans. 11.
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Martinez
and Miller teaches or suggests “a boot device” that includes “a boot image
that comprises: boot code executed by the at least one processor that
initializes the apparatus,” as recited in independent claim 9, and
commensurately recited in independent claim 17?
The Examiner relies on Martinez’s teachings of a configuration
snapshot including a script for configuration components with a listing of
boot devices to teach the claimed boot device including a boot image. Ans.
14 (citing Martinez H 28, 44, 49). The Examiner finds Martinez’s
initialization by setting up default values teaches the claimed boot code.
Ans. 4 (citing Martinez 130). The Examiner further finds Miller teaches a
1 The rejection of claims 9-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn.
Ans. 13.
3
Appeal 2017-009219
Application 14/051,842
boot device including a bootable image. Ans. 14 (citing Miller || 11—12,
34); see Ans. 5—6 (citing Miller Fig. 2, || 9-12, 29, 34).
Appellants contend Martinez’s snapshot and snapshot tool do not
teach the claimed bootable image that includes a boot code. Reply Br. 3.
Specifically, Appellants argue Martinez does not teach that a snapshot tool is
a bootable image to boot a computer device, nor does Martinez teach
booting from the snapshot saved as a configuration status file. App. Br. 19,
22; see Reply Br. 3. Appellants further contend adding Miller’s bootable
image of a PC to Martinez does not teach “providing a boot device that
comprises a computer readable non-transitory storage that includes a boot
image that comprises: boot code.” Reply Br. 3^4. Specifically, Appellants
argue that the “features in Martinez the [EJxaminer reads on the
requirements for the computing solution, a system verification and
integration mechanism, and a building and integration mechanism are not on
a boot device that includes boot code, as claimed.” Reply Br. 3.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As Appellants point out
(App. Br. 18), paragraph 49 of Martinez teaches a configuration snapshot
tool that includes “component scripts for checking configuration of
corresponding operating system components . . . [including] bootlist
(provides a list of boot devices and gives an error message if the bootlist has
changed or is missing)” (emphasis added). As Appellants further point out
(App. Br. 19), paragraph 28 of Martinez teaches that the configuration
snapshot tool “generates a configuration snapshot that includes
configuration data for each relevant component and/or sub-component of a
computer system, with the snapshot being logged or stored or written to a
configuration status file” (emphasis added). Paragraph 30 of Martinez
4
Appeal 2017-009219
Application 14/051,842
describes the method of “verifying configuration of a system” that “starts at
step 102 with the program initializing,'1'’ which is followed by step 110 where
the “configuration snapshot tool or program reads the configuration files'1'’
(emphases added).
We find the Examiner has not provided sufficient findings that
Martinez’s configuration snapshot tool including component scripts with a
list of boot devices (i.e., bootlist) that generates configuration snapshots and
reads the saved configuration snapshots (i.e., configuration files), as
combined with Martinez, teaches or suggests the claimed “boot device that
includes a boot image.” We further find the Examiner has not provided
sufficient findings that Martinez’s program initializing the program and then
the configuration snapshot tool reading a configuration snapshot (i.e.,
configuration file) teaches or suggests the claimed “a boot image that
comprises: boot code.”
Accordingly, we are constrained, based on the record, to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9 and 17. Because we agree
with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not
reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. We, therefore, do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9—18.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9—18 is reversed.
REVERSED
5