Ex Parte Chakravarty

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

11057103 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SRINATH S. CHAKRAVARTY
____________

Appeal 2011-008663
Application 11/057,103
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008663
Application 11/057,103

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Srinath S. Chakravarty (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.1

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computerized method of automatically administering a plurality
of diverse security-constrained servers, the computerized method
comprising:
querying a secure access management database on a storage
device, with a computer executing logic contained on a medium, for
information relating to profile and access parameters for a plurality of
diverse security-constrained servers, wherein a resultant list obtained
from the querying at least partially determines which sets of
commands will be automatically transmitted to at least one of the
plurality of servers wherein the secure access management database is
remote from the plurality of servers;
automatically transmitting, with the computer executing logic
contained on the medium, a first set of the commands to the at least
one of the plurality of servers, wherein the first set of the commands

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Dec. 8, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 18, 2011),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Feb. 17, 2011).
Appeal 2011-008663
Application 11/057,103

3
includes access commands configured to gain secure access to the at
least one of the plurality of servers;
automatically and non-invasively obtaining, with the computer
executing logic contained on the medium, administrator level access
on the at least one of the plurality of the servers using the first set of
automatically transmitted commands;
automatically transmitting, with the computer executing logic
contained on the medium, a second set of the commands to the at least
one of the plurality of servers wherein the second set of the commands
include action commands configured to perform administrative tasks
on the at least one of the plurality of servers; and
intrusively administering the at least one of the plurality of the
servers, with the computer executing logic contained on the medium
and an agent installed on the at least one of the plurality of servers,
using the administrator level access and the second set of
automatically transmitted commands.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Edwiges
Komarla
Watt

US 2005/0015503 A1
US 7,207,039 B2
US 7,213,065 B2
Jan. 20, 2005
Apr. 17, 2007
May 1, 2007
Don Libes, “- Expect - A Tool For Automating Interactive Programs.”
2 [Libes]

The following rejections are before us for review:

2 App. Br. 7: “cited by Appellant in IDS filed 03 August 2006.”
Appeal 2011-008663
Application 11/057,103

4
1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Komarla, Watt, and Edwiges.
3. Claims 3, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komarla, Watt, Edwiges, and Libes.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-8, and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-19 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Komarla, Watt, and Edwiges?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 3, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Komarla, Watt, Edwiges, and Libes?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
This rejection is not sustained because the Examiner has not presented
a prima facie case of non-statutory subject matter for the subject matter
recited in claims 1-3, 5-8, and 17-20. The subject matter to which all these
Appeal 2011-008663
Application 11/057,103

5
claims are drawn are processes, not articles of manufacture. And yet the
Examiner takes the position that the claims cover “transitory embodiments,
such as carrier waves encoded with the software steps. However, transitory
forms of signals are not statutory (In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495).” Ans. 4.
Because the claims are directed to processes and not articles, the Examiner’s
position is inapposite.

The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Komarla, Watt, and Edwiges.
The Examiner’s position is that Komarla discloses all the claim
limitations except for root [administrator level] access, for which Watt is
relied upon. According to the Examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize
administrator access such as taught by Watt in a provisioning system such as
that taught by Komarla.” Ans. 6. The Examiner also found that “[n]either
Komarla nor Watt expressly teaches two separate commands for accessing a
system and providing services.” Ans. 6. Edwiges is cited as disclosing that
limitation. Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, “[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to utilize separate access and providing commands such as taught by
Edwiges in a system for administration such as taught by Komarla or Watt.”
Ans. 6.
The Appellant argues that the cited prior art combination does not
show or make obvious the claimed subject matter whereby two sets of
commands are transmitted - a “first set of [ ] commands [that] includes
access commands configured to gain secure access to [ ] at least one of [a]
Appeal 2011-008663
Application 11/057,103

6
plurality of [ ] servers” (claim 1) and a “second set of [ ] commands [that]
include action commands configured to perform administrative tasks on the
at least one of the plurality of servers” (claim 1). App. Br. 11 (emphasis
omitted).
The Appellant’s argument implicates Edwiges because it is Edwiges
that the Examiner relied on to show the two sets of commands as claimed
were known in the prior art art. In that regard, the Examiner cited to [0026]
for the first command and paragraph 29 for the second command. Ans. 6.
[0026] The process according to the invention includes a first stage (a)
of transmission, from the server to the server client, of a request for
acceptance for the provisioning of a set of rules. The request thus
involves a transaction concerning a set of rules. This means that it
includes general characteristics of this rule-set (such as the resources
necessary for the reception and then, where appropriate, for the
putting into application or the execution of these rules). In any case,
the request does not include the totality of the code and/or of the data
necessary for the putting into application or the execution of these
rules.
[0029] For example, the client can assign the value YES or any other
logical value (e.g. one, yes, true, etc.) to a Boolean function and can
reserve resources that are appropriate to the request if the request is
accepted by the client or the PEP. The process then includes a stage
(c) for transmission of the boolean function from the client to the
server. The transaction is then validated by the PDP when the value of
the boolean function is YES in a fourth stage (d). Validation of the
transaction takes the form of a provisioning (for example a
downloading operation) of all the rules (including their contents)
grouped together in the rule-set concerned in the request, with a view
to putting into application or execution at a later time.
These passages do not show the two commands as claimed; that is,
1) access commands to gain secure access; and 2) action commands to
Appeal 2011-008663
Application 11/057,103

7
perform administrative tasks. We therefore agree with the Appellant (App.
Br. 12-13) that the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that
Edwiges shows the two sets of commands as claimed.

Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been made out
in the first instance for the subject matter of independent claim 1 and claims
2 and 5-8 depending therefrom.
Independent claim 9 also includes the two sets of commands
limitation and the Examiner took the same position with respect to it. Ans. 9.
For the same reasons, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been made
out in the first instance for the subject matter of independent claim 9 and
claims 10 and 13-16 depending therefrom.
By contrast, the rejection of the remaining independent claim 17 does
not rely on Edwiges as evidence that the two sets of commands are known in
the prior art. See Ans. 9-12. Accordingly, the Appellant’s arguments
challenging the sufficiency of Edwiges are not germane to the rejection of
claim 17. App. Br. 13. There being no other arguments challenging the
rejection of claim 17, we are unpersuaded as to error in the rejection of claim
17 and claims 18 and 19 depending therefrom.

The rejection of claims 3, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komarla, Watt, Edwiges, and Libes.
The Appellant relies on the arguments made in challenging the
rejection of the independent claims. App. Br. 14. Those arguments having
been found persuasive as to independent claims 1 and 9 and not claim 17, we
Appeal 2011-008663
Application 11/057,103

8
find them persuasive as to claims 3 and 11 that depend from claims 1 and 9,
respectively, but not as to claim 20 that depends from claim 17.

CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Komarla, Watt, and Edwiges is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komarla, Watt, and Edwiges is sustained.
The rejection of claims 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komarla, Watt, Edwiges, and Libes is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komarla, Watt, Edwiges, and Libes is sustained.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 is
affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART
Vsh