Ex Parte Jaiswal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2014

11839805 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PEEYUSH JAISWAL, NAVEEN NARAYAN, and FANG WANG
____________

Appeal 2012-004640
Application 11/839,805
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before STANLEY M. WEINBERG, JOHN A. EVANS, and MICHELLE N.
WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1–193 as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
3 App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-004640
Application 11/839,805

2
We AFFIRM.4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method and system for managing a plurality of
servers coupled to a network. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below:
1. A method of managing a plurality of servers coupled to a
network, said method comprising:
notifying at least some of a plurality of servers that an old
server name will be changed to a new server name at a specified
time;
wherein each of said plurality of servers are identified by
a server name and, one of said servers is identified by the old
server name.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Chen (US 2004/0024852 A1; Feb. 5, 2004) in view of Endrikhovski (US
2008/0201724 A1; Aug. 21, 2008). Ans. 4–9.
Appellants contend that “[a]t pages 3–8 of the Final Office Action,
claims 1–19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen and Savage.

4 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 1, 2011
(“Brief”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 27, 2011 (“Ans.”); and
the Final Rejection mailed January 6, 2011.
Appeal 2012-004640
Application 11/839,805

3
Brief 4. In the section of their Brief titled: STATUS OF CLAIMS,
Appellants remark:
Claims 1–19 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. 2004/0024852 (hereinafter “Chen”) in view of U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2007/0283050 (hereinafter
“Savage”) as noted in the Final Office Action of January 19,
2010.
Brief 2.
In a Final Action mailed January 19, 2010, Claims 1–19 were rejected
over Chen and Savage. Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on May 4, 2010.
Prosecution was re-opened in a Non-Final Action mailed July 20, 2010;
Claims 1–19 were rejected over Chen and Endrikhovski. In an Amendment
filed October 18, 2010, Appellants traversed over Chen and Endrikhovski.
However, the Examiner maintained the rejection over Chen and
Endrikhovski in a Final Office Action mailed January 6, 2011. The Final
Rejection mailed January 6, 2011, not the Final Office Action mailed
January 19, 2010, is the proper subject of the present appeal.
Appellants’ traversal is moot in that its Brief does not address the
basis for the Final Rejection mailed on January 6, 2011.
The rejection of Claims 1–19 is summarily affirmed.

DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2012-004640
Application 11/839,805

4
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

lp