Ex Parte Gilbert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2015

11451023 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALLEN M. GILBERT, DAVID L. KAMINSKY, and
A. STEVEN KRANTZ
____________________

Appeal 2012-0079561
Application 11/451,0232
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 7, 13, and 21–37. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jan.
27, 2012) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 24, 2012), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 29, 2012).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-007956
Application 11/451,023

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention pertains to managing resources in a
data processing system using rules. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer implemented method of managing resources
in a data processing system, the computer implemented method
comprising:
[(a)] a processor unit, in response to detecting a rule
change, transmitting a new rule to a rule control logic in a
resource management database, wherein the resource
management database is a Configuration Management Database
(CMDB), wherein the rule change changes a rule for an
attribute of a resource in a data processing system, and wherein
the resource management database describes attributes of
resources in the data processing system;
[(b)] the processor unit transmitting the new rule from the
rule control logic to a resource manager, wherein the new rule
instructs the resource manager to implement the new rule in a
resource in the data processing system;
[(c)] the processor unit transmitting a watch message
from the rule control logic to a Configuration Item (CI) in a
CMDB, wherein the CI contains a shadow copy of attribute
configurations for resources managed by the CMDB, and
wherein the watch message instructs the CI to watch for a
certification entry from the resource manager, and wherein the
certification entry identifies the resource as being in compliance
with the new rule;
[(d)] the processor unit transmitting a certification
message from the CI to a certification control in the CMDB,
wherein the certification message indicates whether the
resource is in compliance with the new rule; and
[(e)] the processor unit transmitting a compliance
summary from the certification control to an enterprise
Information Systems (IS) manager, wherein the compliance
summary describes a compliance status for multiple resources
Appeal 2012-007956
Application 11/451,023

3
in the data processing system, and wherein the compliance
status describes whether a resource has or has not implemented
the new rule.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Baron
Lubrecht
Chaddha
US 2006/0004875 A1
US 2006/0161879 A1
US 2006/0293942 A1
Jan. 5, 2006
July 20, 2006
Dec. 28, 2006

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 7, 13, 21–26, and 33–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Lubrecht and Chaddha.
Claims 27–32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lubrecht, Chaddha, and Baron.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 21–37 stand provisionally rejected on the ground
of nonstatutory obviousnessness-type double patenting over claims 1–20 of
copending Application No. 11/451,073.

ANALYSIS
Double Patenting
We summarily sustain the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejection, because Appellants present no arguments contesting the
rejection. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1205.02 (“If a
ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s
brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”)
Appeal 2012-007956
Application 11/451,023

4
Independent claims 1, 7, and 13, and dependent claims 21–26 and 33–37
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Chaddha fails to
disclose the claim limitation “transmitting a watch message from the rule
control logic to a Configuration Item (CI) in a CMDB . . . wherein the watch
message instructs the CI to watch for a certification entry from the resource
manager, and wherein the certification entry identifies the resource as being
in compliance with the new rule,” as recited by paragraph (c) of claim 1 and
similarly recited in independent claims 7 and 13. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner directs our attention to Figure 12 of Chaddha as
disclosing this feature. Ans. 7. But Figure 12 discloses monitoring a service
level agreement for compliance and generating an exception report at each
billing interval for non-compliant assets. Chaddha ¶ 69. The Examiner
explains that Chaddha must be programmed with instructions that provide
guidance regarding what to monitor, and ostensibly takes the position that a
last set of programmed instructions reads on the claimed watch message.
Ans. 13. We agree with Appellants that none of these citations nor the
Examiner’s explanation teaches “transmitting a watch message from the rule
control logic to a Configuration Item (CI) in a CMDB . . . wherein the watch
message instructs the CI to watch for a certification entry from the resource
manager, and wherein the certification entry identifies the resource as being
in compliance with the new rule,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited
in independent claims 7 and 13. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 21–26 and 33–37, each of which depends from one of
independent claims 1, 7, and 13.
Appeal 2012-007956
Application 11/451,023

5
Dependent claims 27–32
Claims 27–32 ultimately depend from independent claims 1, 7, and
13, respectively. The Examiner does not establish on this record that Baron
cures the deficiency of Chaddha described above with respect to claims 1, 7,
and 13. Ans. 11 and 17. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 27–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set
forth above with respect to the independent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 7, 13, and 21–37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
The Examiner’s provisional rejection of claims 1, 7, 13, and 21–37 on
the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

Klh