Ex Parte Childress et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2012

11216960 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RHONDA L. CHILDRESS, CATHERINE HELEN CRAWFORD,
DAVID BRUCE KUMHYR, PAOLO FRANCO MAGNONE and
NEIL R. PENNELL
____________

Appeal 2009-012205
Application 11/216,960
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012205
Application 11/216,960

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1 and 3-8.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to an improved data processing system and in
particular to a method, system, and computer usable code for generating test
grid environments in grid computing. Spec. ¶ 0001.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the issue on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method in a data processing
system for generating a description of a test grid environment
for use in a grid computing environment, said computer-
implemented method comprising:
providing a database that includes a plurality of test
snapshots, wherein each test snapshot of the plurality of test
snapshots includes a description of a particular test scenario and
a description of a particular grid configuration upon which the
particular test scenario has been tested;
querying the database with a query, wherein the query
includes a description of a desired test scenario as an input; and
generating a test grid environment description based on
results of the query, wherein the test grid environment
description describes a test grid environment that supports the
desired test scenario.

Claims 1, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bryant (US 2004/0045001 A1), Archie (US 5,021,997)
and Creamer (US 2005/0076192 A1).

1 Claims 2 and 9-24 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2009-012205
Application 11/216,960

3
Claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bryant, Archie, Creamer and Murphy (US 2004/0177244
A1).
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
Bryant, Archie and Creamer teach or suggest: (1) “providing a database that
includes a plurality of test snapshots, wherein each test snapshot of the
plurality of test snapshots includes a description of a particular test scenario
and a description of a particular grid configuration upon which the particular
test scenario has been tested” and “generating a test grid environment
description based on results of the query, wherein the test grid environment
description describes a test grid environment that supports the desired test
scenario,” as recited in independent claim 1; and (2) “describing a current
grid configuration of a computing grid to produce a current grid
configuration description” and “changing the current grid configuration to
match the test grid environment description, wherein the test grid
environment is produced,” as recited in dependent claim 5?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
Bryant, Archie, Creamer and Murphy teach or suggest “comparing the
current grid configuration description with the test grid environment
description to produce a comparison; and generating a dependency graph
based on the comparison,” as recited in dependent claim 3?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and adopt as our own:
Appeal 2009-012205
Application 11/216,960

4
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. However, with respect to the
claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1, 5 and 6
Appellants first assert that Bryant does not disclose, teach or suggest
“providing a database that includes a plurality of test snapshots, wherein
each test snapshot of the plurality of test snapshots includes a description of
a particular test scenario and a description of a particular grid configuration
upon which the particular test scenario has been tested,” as recited in claim
1. Br. 11. Appellants further assert that Archie does not disclose or suggest
the same disputed claim limitations. Br. 12. Appellants conclude that
therefore Bryant in view of Archie also does not teach or suggest “providing
a database that includes a plurality of test snapshots, wherein each test
snapshot of the plurality of test snapshots includes a description of a
particular test scenario and a description of a particular grid configuration
upon which the particular test scenario has been tested.” Id.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments because the Examiner
relies on the combination of Bryant, Archie and Creamer for describing the
disputed limitations. In particular, the Examiner relies on Bryant for
describing a database that includes a plurality of test snapshots and a
description of a particular configuration upon which the particular test
scenario has been tested (Ans. 4-5 (citing Bryant ¶ 0020, ll. 5-10)); Archie
for providing a description of a test scenario (Ans. 5 (citing Archie col. 8, ll.
7-10)); and Creamer for describing the use of a grid environment (Ans. 6
Appeal 2009-012205
Application 11/216,960

5
(citing Creamer ¶ 0009, ll. 1-3)). See also Ans. 12-14. Appellants’ assertions
addressing each of the applied references separately are insufficient to show
that the references as combined by the Examiner do not describe the
disputed limitations. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Circ. 1986);
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants next assert that Bryant does not disclose or suggest
“generating a test grid environment description based on results of the query,
wherein the test grid environment description describes a test grid
environment that supports the desired test scenario,” as recited in claim 1.
Br. 13. Appellants further assert that Creamer does not disclose or suggest
the same disputed limitations. Br. 13-14. Appellants conclude that therefore
the combination of Bryant, Archie and Creamer does not disclose or suggest
“generating a test grid environment description based on results of the query,
wherein the test grid environment description describes a test grid
environment that supports the desired test scenario.” Br. 14.
Appellants’ additional arguments are unpersuasive since they address
the teachings of each of the applied references separately. The Examiner’s
rejection of the claims is based on the combined teachings of Bryant, Archie
and Creamer. Ans. 4-6. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Bryant for
describing the generation of a test environment description based on results
of the query, wherein the test environment description describes a test
environment that supports the desired test scenario (Ans. 5 (citing Bryant ¶
0020, ll. 10-14)); and Creamer for describing the use of a grid environment
(Ans. 6 (citing Creamer ¶ 0009, ll. 1-3)). See also Ans. 14. Appellants’
Appeal 2009-012205
Application 11/216,960

6
arguments separately addressing the teachings of each of the applied
references are insufficient to show that the references as combined by the
Examiner do not describe the disputed limitations. See Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
For these same reasons, we are also unpersuaded by Appellants’
arguments separately addressing the limitations of dependent claim 5. In
contrast to Appellants’ argument that Creamer does not teach or suggest
“describing a current grid configuration of a computing grid to produce a
current grid configuration description” and “changing the current grid
configuration to match the test grid environment description, wherein the
test grid environment is produced” and Appellants’ conclusion that Bryant,
Archie, Creamer, nor their combination teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of claim 5 (Br. 15), the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Bryant, Archie and Creamer to meet the claim limitations. In
particular, the Examiner relies on Bryant for describing a current
configuration of a computing system to produce a current configuration
description and changing the current configuration to match the test
environment description, wherein the test environment is produced (Ans. 6
(citing Bryant ¶ 0025, ll. 8-12, 14-18)); and Creamer for describing the use
of a grid environment (Ans. 6 (citing Creamer ¶ 0009, ll. 1-3)). See also
Ans. 14-15.
For all these reasons, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 5 and 6 as
obvious over Bryant, Archie and Creamer.
Claims 3, 4, 7 and 8
Separately addressing dependent claim 3, Appellants assert that
Murphy does not disclose or suggest “comparing the current grid
Appeal 2009-012205
Application 11/216,960

7
configuration description with the test grid environment description to
produce a comparison; and generating a dependency graph based on the
comparison.” Br. 16-17. Appellants conclude that Bryant, Archie, Creamer,
Murphy, nor their combination teach or suggest the disputed limitations of
claim 3. Br. 17.
Appellants’ arguments are similarly unpersuasive because they
address the teachings of Murphy separately rather than addressing the
combined teachings of Bryant, Archie, Creamer and Murphy. See Merck,
800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. In contrast to Appellants’
arguments, the Examiner relies on Bryant for describing a comparison of the
current configuration description with the test environment description to
produce a comparison (Ans. 8 (citing Bryant ¶ 0020, ll. 10-12)); Creamer for
describing the use of a grid environment (Ans. 8 (citing Creamer ¶ 0009, ll.
1-3)); and Murphy for describing the generation of a dependency graph
based on the comparison (Ans. 8 (citing Murphy ¶ 0060, ll. 10-12)). See also
Ans. 15-16.
For all these reasons, in addition to those discussed above addressing
claims 1, 5 and 6, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 as obvious
over Bryant, Archie, Creamer and Murphy.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bryant, Archie and Creamer.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 3, 4, 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bryant, Archie, Creamer and
Murphy.
Appeal 2009-012205
Application 11/216,960

8
TIME PERIOD
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