Ex Parte Gracyk

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2010

10425831 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DONNA JEAN GRACYK
____________________

Appeal 2009-004137
Application 10/425,8311
Technology Center 2400

____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Company.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-004137
Application 10/425,831

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention relates to a smart plug-in for installation on a
customer’s management server and a method for configuring a node in a
computer network that includes discovering at least one characteristic of the
node, accessing at least one of a policy and a package associated with each
at least one discovered characteristic, in response to discovery of the at least
one service at the node, and installing the associated at least one of the
policy and the package on the node (Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for configuring a node in a computer network,
comprising:
discovering at least one characteristic of the node;
accessing at least one of a policy and a package associated with the at
least one discovered characteristic, in response to the discovery of the at
least one characteristic at the node; and
installing the associated at least one of the policy and the package on
the node.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kennedy US 2002/0188643 A1 Dec. 12, 2002

Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kennedy.
2
Appeal 2009-004137
Application 10/425,831

Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed March 17, 2008) and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 1, 2008) for their respective details.

ISSUES
Appellant contends that Kennedy does not disclose “discovering at
least one characteristic of the node” (App. Br. 5). Appellant asserts that
since Kennedy does not disclose that deployment items are accessed in
response to identifying items 312-318, Kennedy does not disclose
“accessing at least one of a policy and a package associated with the at least
one discovered characteristic, in response to the discovery of the at least one
characteristic at the node” (App. Br. 5-6). Appellant contends further that
Kennedy does not disclose that the deployment items are "associated with a
characteristic" (App. Br. 6).
In addition, Appellant argues that Kennedy fails to disclose "installing
the associated at least one of the policy and the package on the node," since
the policies 303 are executed on enterprise management server 340 or
dispatched on selected nodes in the enterprise (App. Br. 5). Appellant
contends further that Kennedy discloses deployment of items by the policies
303, and not the actual policy (App. Br. 5). Appellant asserts that the nodes
disclosed in Kennedy, "kenya," "chair," and "brutus," are "intermediate
nodes” used as staging points by a software distribution function that
appears to distribute deployable items to a set of deploy targets, such as
items 312-318 (App. Br. 6). Accordingly, Appellant asserts that these nodes
cannot be considered to correspond to Applicant's claimed “nodes” and
distributing deployable items to these nodes cannot be considered to
3
Appeal 2009-004137
Application 10/425,831

correspond with “installing the associated at least one of the policy and the
package on the node” (App. Br. 6).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following three issues:
1. Does the reference disclose discovering at least one characteristic
of a node?
2. Does the reference disclose accessing at least one policy and
package associated with one discovered characteristic, in response to the
discovery of the characteristic at the node?
3. Does the reference disclose installing an associated policy and
package on the node?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. The smart plug-in installed on the customer’s management
server includes an auto-discovery policy that can be used for a variety of
plug-ins, wherein a new instance of a characteristic on a node (Node A) in a
network may be discovered. The characteristic can be a service available at
the node; such as Microsoft Exchange (an email utility) 106. In response to
this discovery, a policy 108 and/or a package 110 associated with the
discovered characteristic is accessed from a network model database 114 on
the customer’s management server 136. The corresponding package 110
and/or policy 108 or set of policies is automatically deployed and installed
onto the node (Fig. 1; Spec. ¶¶ [0008], [0009], and [0010]).
4
Appeal 2009-004137
Application 10/425,831

Kennedy
2. Kennedy discloses a system and a methodology for a model-
based approach to network management. In step 202, the process begins by
identifying network-related hardware, software, and other physical or logical
entities and their relationships. The system derives a unifying model
containing these entities and their relationships in step 204, and
corresponding policies that utilize the model to address enterprise
management are written in step 206. Finally in step 208 the policies are
executed on devices throughout the enterprise to implement the policies
(Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0030-31]).
3. Kennedy discloses physical/logical topology 301, which
represents the domain of physical and logical items 312-318 that an
enterprise administrator wishes to monitor and/or manage. Physical entities
may include items that physically exist. In contrast, logical entities are
intangible items. For example, within an information technology domain,
physical entities are usually hardware but may include users, such as
database administrators, network administrators, network technicians,
hardware support personnel, etc. Physical entities may also include copies
of executable program components. Each item and each relationship
between each item identified in physical/logical topology 301 will have a
corresponding definition in the enterprise model 302 which is stored in a
model repository 303. Policies are developed that can be used to perform
tasks or to specify monitoring/management parameters. The collection of all
policies 330 constitutes the overall enterprise management strategy (Figs. 2
and 3; ¶¶ [0033-36]).
5
Appeal 2009-004137
Application 10/425,831

4. Kennedy discloses that policies may be executed on Enterprise
Management Server (EMS) 340. Each policy can be assigned a priority for
priority-scheduled execution. The policies can be executed in parallel. The
policies may also be dispatched to run on selected nodes throughout the
enterprise (Fig. 3; ¶ [0039]).
5. Kennedy discloses that a policy allows the user to specify all
aspects of a given monitoring task and/or management task. For example, a
policy can be used to accomplish the following tasks: (1) identifying the
type of items to monitor and manage; (2) specifying the associated scope of
these items when, for example, items are deployed; (3) setting appropriate
parameters for the items when, for example, items are configured; (4)
defining the monitoring criteria; (5) defining the monitoring and/or
management function or task; and (6) specifying the target nodes on which
to run the policy (¶ [0056]).
6. Kennedy discloses a typical network management solution that
requires the use of multiple network management applications in tandem,
each of which performs a set of tasks for monitoring and managing the
hardware and software distributed throughout an enterprise. Kennedy
discloses a network management application, such as a software distribution
application used to install and configure software applications. Generally,
the statement 802 attempts to distribute some type of deployable items to a
set of deploy targets using a set of intermediate nodes during the
deployment. As a result, a handle to the deployed items is returned to allow
use of the items in a policy associated with the enterprise model. A
deployable item is any item that can be deployed to a set of machines, such
as, software objects. Intermediate nodes are nodes that are to be used as
6
Appeal 2009-004137
Application 10/425,831

staging points for scalable deployment. A more specific example is found in
statement 804, where the "Deploy" method of the software distribution
object is used to deploy a set of Windows NTTM adapter objects to all
machines that have a Windows NTTM operating system. Nodes "kenya",
"chair", and "brutus" are used as staging points by the software distribution
function. As a result, a handle to all of the adapter objects is returned for use
by a policy associated with the enterprise model (Fig. 8A; ¶¶ [0074-77]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 102 is established when a single
prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency
each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-21
We select claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims, pursuant to
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Representative claim 1 recites “discovering at least one characteristic
of the node; accessing at least one of a policy and a package associated with
the at least one discovered characteristic, in response to the discovery of the
at least one characteristic at the node; and installing the associated at least
one of the policy and the package on the node.”
We do not consider Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
7
Appeal 2009-004137
Application 10/425,831

Kennedy discovers at least one characteristic of the node. Kennedy
discloses that when the physical/logical topology 301 is derived, the first
step is to identify all items of interest and their relationship (the process
begins by identifying network-related hardware, software, and other physical
or logical entities and their relationships). Physical entities may include
hardware and copies of an executable program component, such as
Microsoft Exchange. The hardware could be a node that is a client PC that
has MS Exchange residing upon it similar to the example provided in the
Specification (FF 1-3).
With regards to “accessing at least one of a policy and a package
associated with the at least one discovered characteristic, in response to the
discovery of the at least one characteristic at the node and installing the
associated at least one of the policy and the package on the node,” Kennedy
discloses that each item and each relationship between items that were
identified in physical/logical topology 301 have a corresponding definition
in enterprise model 302 (FF 3). Kennedy discloses that each model is stored
in a model repository 303 (FF 3). Kennedy discloses further that appropriate
enterprise management policies 303 are developed for managing the
enterprise while using enterprise model 302 (FF 3). These policies can be
used to perform tasks or to specify monitoring/management parameters and
the collection of all policies 330 constitute the overall enterprise
management strategy (FF 3). Kennedy discloses that policies may be
executed on the Enterprise Management Server (EMS) 340 or may be
dispatched to run on selected nodes throughout the enterprise (FF 4-6).
8
Appeal 2009-004137
Application 10/425,831

Therefore, we find that Kennedy discloses all the claim limitations of
representative claim 1. As a result, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 102
rejection of representative claim 1 and that of dependent claims 2-21.

CONCLUSIONS
The reference discloses discovering at least one characteristic of a
node.
The reference discloses accessing at least one policy and package
associated with one discovered characteristic, in response to the discovery of
the characteristic at the node.
The reference discloses installing an associated policy and package on
the node.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 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)(1)(iv).

9
Appeal 2009-004137
Application 10/425,831

AFFIRMED

ELD

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528

10