Ex Parte Celli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2016

12297081 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/297,081 10/14/2008
35525 7590 03/14/2016
IBM CORP (YA)
C/O YEE & AS SOCIA TES PC
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Massimiliano Celli
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.
FR920050095US 1 4305
EXAMINER
BROPHY, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASSIMILIANO CELLI, GIANLUCA BERNARDINI,
ROSARIO GANGEMI, and LUIGI PICHETTI
Appeal2014-005360 1
Application 12/297,081
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-8. App. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants invented a software package distribution method for
facilitating the deployment of desired packages of software products from a
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005360
Application 12/297,081
central server (120) to one or more target endpoints (110) in a distributed
network. In particular, upon receiving a plan to download the software
package to a target endpoint, the central server executes the plan, including
simulating the software on the target endpoint to ensure that the latter device
is capable of successfully executing the software before it is deployed
thereto. Abst. Fig. 3.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for performing system management operations
on at least one target endpoint data processing apparatus of a
distributed data processing system including a system
management server adapted to the centralized system
management of the endpoints of the distributed data processing
system, the method comprising:
- at the system management server, receiving a system
management activities plan including at least one system
management activity to be performed on said at least one target
endpoint;
- having the system management server executing the
system management activities plan, wherein said executing the
plan includes performing the at least one system management
activity, wherein performing the system management activity
further comprises:
- prior to executing the corresponding system management
activity, having the system management server cause the
execution, on the at least one target endpoint, of a simulated
system management activity corresponding to and adapted to
simulate the at least one system management activity in the plan
so as to ascertain a capability of the at least one target endpoint
of successfully executing the system management activity; and
2
Appeal2014-005360
Application 12/297,081
- having the system management server execute the
system management activity conditionally to a result of the
execution of the simulated system management activity.
Childress et al.
Rogers et al.
Crudele et al.
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2004/0210889 Al
US 2005/0210460 Al
US 6,973,647 B2
Kothandaraman et al. US 7,657,887 B2
Rejections on Appeal
Oct. 21, 2004
Sep.22,2005
Dec. 6, 2005
Feb.2,2010
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Crudele and Rogers.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Crudele, Rogers, and Childress.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Crudele, Rogers, and Kothandaraman.
ANALYSIS
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Crudele and Rogers teaches or suggests upon
receiving a system management activities plan, a system management server
executes the system management activities plan, as required by independent
claim 1?
Appellants argue the proposed combination of references does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 6-8,
3
Appeal2014-005360
Application 12/297,081
Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants argue Crudele discloses a target
endpoint executing software packages, whereas the claim requires that the
server perform such an execution. App. Br. 7-8 (citing Crudele 3 :23-39).
In response, the Examiner finds because the disputed claim limitations
require the software execution be performed on a target endpoint, the cited
disclosure of Crudele teaches the disputed limitations. Ans. 17-19 (citing
Crudele 3 :23-39). We do not agree with the Examiner.
The claim recites in relevant-part the following:
( 1) having the system management server executing the system
management activities plan ...
(2) having the system management server cause the execution, on the
at least one target endpoint, of a simulated system management
activity.
We do not agree with the Examiner's conclusion that claim limitation
(2) can be correctly interpreted as the system management server causing a
management activity to be executed on the at least one target endpoint. Ans.
18. Rather, claim limitation (2) requires that the system management server
cause the execution of a simulated management activity on the target
endpoint. Further, claim limitation (1) plainly requires that the system
management activities plan be executed on the server. In other words, the
claims require that the server execute the system management activities plan
and the target execute the simulated management activity. Therefore, we
agree with Appellants that Crudele' s disclosure of the server causing a target
endpoint to execute a software package does not teach any of the two claim
limitations set forth above. Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner also has not found
that any of the other references of record teaches this feature. Because
4
Appeal2014-005360
Application 12/297,081
Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments.
Accordingly, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Crudele and Rogers renders claim 1 unpatentable.
Because claims 2-8 also recite commensurate limitations to those of
claim 1 discussed above, we similarly find error in the Examiner's rejections
of those claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) of
claims 1-8 as set forth above.
REVERSED
5