Ex Parte Cordray et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 18, 2016

12578364 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/578,364 10/13/2009
23117 7590 02/22/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher G. Cordray
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.
4572-9 6205
EXAMINER
BENGZON, GREG C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER G. CORDRAY, RICHARD
CHART, DAVID LINK, MATTHEW LUEBKE, KARL
GINTER, and MICHAEL BARTMAN
Appeal2014-003242
Application 12/578,364
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 filed this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 18-24, 27-29, 42--45, 56, and 57.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse. 3
1 Appellants identify ScienceLogic, LLC as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
2 Claims 2, 6, 8-17, 25, 26, 30--41, and 46-55 were canceled and, thus, are
not before us on appeal.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Oct. 13, 2009 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action mailed Nov. 7, 2012 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief
Appeal2014-003242
Application 12/578,364
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a dynamically deployable self-configuring
distributed network management system. (Spec., Title.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A network management method comprising:
deploying a trusted arrangement of network collection
software on a first network or subnetwork;
said trusted arrangement of network collection software
comprising a trust domain specification specifying:
at least one network collection software,
at least one hardware computing component upon
which the network collection software is authorized to
operate, and
at least one network collection specification which
describes the information that the network collection
software is authorized to collect from the network,
executing said network collection software on a hardware
component of the first network or subnetwork the trust domain
specification specifies the network collection software is
authorized to operate upon;
collecting information, with the network collection
software executing on the hardware component, including:
identifying at least one dynamic application effective to
discover authorized information related to the configuration of
the first network or subnetwork,
instantiating the at least one dynamic application as part
of the instance of the executing network collection software,
and
utilizing the at least one dynamic application to collect
authorized information related to the configuration of the first
network or subnetwork, and
sharing said discovered configuration-related information
with a further, trusted instance of the same or different network
collection software.
filed July 8, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Sept. 17,
2013 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 18, 2013 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2014-003242
Application 12/578,364
REJECTIONS
Claims 42--45 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter. (Final Act. 5-6.) This rejection was withdrawn by
the Examiner (Ans. 3) and is thus not before us on appeal.
Claims 43--45 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
(Final Act. 6.) This rejection was also withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 3)
and is not before us on appeal.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 18, 27-29, 42--45, 56, and 57 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Pusateri (US 7,870,238 B2, issued Jan. 11,
2011), Ginter (US 2009/0271504 Al, published Oct. 29, 2009), Frazier
(US 7,937,387 B2, issued May 3, 2011), and Melchione
(US 2002/0091819 Al, published July 11, 2002). (Final Act. 7-17.)
Appellants canceled claims 42--45 by Amendment filed Nov. 18, 2013.
Claims 19-21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Pusateri, Ginter, ivielchione, and Nagarajrao (US 8,019,851 B2, issued
Sept. 13, 2011). (Final Act. 17-19.)
Claims 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Pusateri, Ginter, Frazier, Melchione, and Nagarajrao, and Lee
(US 2006/0230109 Al, published Oct. 12, 2006). (Final Act. 19-20.)
ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejections
CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 7, 18-24, 27-29, 56, AND 57
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in the§ 103(a) rejections
because the claims recite a "network collection specification" describing the
information that the network collection software is authorized to collect
3
Appeal2014-003242
Application 12/578,364
from the network. (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 3-5.) According to Appellants,
this feature is not taught or suggested by the cited references, particularly not
by Frazier, upon which the Examiner relied to teach this feature. (Id.; Ans.
7-8.)
The Examiner responds that Frazier discloses a trust domain in which
all requests by the user to acquire new data, analyze data, or modify data, are
sent from the console 40 to the controller 30 for fulfillment via an agent.
(Ans. 7 (citing Frazier 7:15-25).) The Examiner notes agents must
authenticate controllers before accepting commands for acquisitions (Id.
(citing Frazier 9:5-30)); and the commands for acquiring new data,
analyzing data, or modifying data are used to gather configuration data on a
target system. (Id. (citing Frazier 6: 15-25).) The Examiner states the
"Frazier process of 'authenticating before accepting commands to be
executed in the trust domain' is equivalent to [the claimed] 'determining if a
software agent on a network is authorized to collect data on a particular
device on that network'." Id. The Examiner concludes the commands are
not executed if Frazier's authentication process fails, and accordingly,
Frazier teaches the claimed limitation. Id.
Having reviewed the Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's
reasoning, we find Appellants' arguments the more persuasive. Although
Frazier mentions agents must authenticate controllers, and controllers must
authenticate each other before they are authorized to communicate (9:5-30),
this falls short of teaching or suggesting use of the claimed "network
collection specification," which describes the information that the network
collection software is authorized to collect from the network. The cited parts
of Frazier do not mention any such specification describing the information
that agents or controllers are authorized to collect. We find this difference
4
Appeal2014-003242
Application 12/578,364
between the claimed feature and cited references, in combination with the
other recited elements, would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art. Appellants indicate this feature provides certain advantages
over the cited references, including flexibility for network trust
configurations and restricting access to unauthorized data. (See, e.g., Spec.
ii 17.)
In order to support a§ 103(a) rejection, the Examiner must articulate
some "reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007)(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).) Here,
we find the rational underpinning to be inadequate. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 or the rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 18-24,
27-29, 56, and 57, which have the same defect as the rejection of claim 1.
CLAIMS 42--45
Concurrently, with their Reply Brief, Appellants filed an amendment
canceling claims 42--45. (See Amendment filed Nov. 18, 2013.) Thus,
claims 42--45 are no longer before us on appeal.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7,
18-24, 27-29, 56, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
5