Ex Parte Johnson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2016

12548554 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/548,554 08/27/2009
24118 7590 08/11/2016
HEAD, JOHNSON & KACHIGIAN, P.C.
228 W 17TH PLACE
TULSA, OK 74119
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
R. BrentJohnson
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.
INT245/08291A 7338
EXAMINER
HOLLAND, SHERYLL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2016 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):
thamm@hjklaw.com
khinkle@hjklaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte R. BRENT JOHNSON
Appeal2015-005203
Application 12/548,554
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EVANS, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-5, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is applicant R. Brent
Johnson. (Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-005203
Application 12/548,554
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to "a secure virtual tape management
system with operator console and catalog monitoring and updating features."
(Spec. 2.) According to the Appellant, the "invention is capable of obtaining
and receiving all console messages of a mainframe host and managing them
so that an automation platform can process them and issue operator
commands in response or for any other reason, such as timed entries. (Id.)
"In addition, [the platform] detects any and all events to be reported and
conveys them back to the operator". (Id.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is
reproduced below:
1. A system to facilitate secure virtual tape management with
console and catalog monitoring and updating, which system
comprises:
at least one mainframe host processor central processing
unit having an inboard catalog therein storing tape related
information and having an operator console communicably
attached thereto;
a virtual tape management central processing unit
compnsmg:
an adaptor for communicating with said mainframe
host processor;
software for facilitating remote configuration and
utilization of said virtual tape management central
processing unit; and
software for storage and organization of messages
for collection by an automation platform;
a virtual tape system catalog storing tape related
information, said catalog being updated on creation of a tape
image, or on movement of a tape image wherein said virtual tape
system catalog is communicably attached to said virtual tape
management central processing unit;
2
Appeal2015-005203
Application 12/548,554
inboard software resident in said mainframe host
processor to:
(a) obtain and review any and all console messages
received from the mainframe host to the operator
console and transfer them to the virtual tape
management central processing unit such that
the inboard software perfomls automation steps
and routines in response to the console
messages;
(b) issue commands to the mainframe host as
received from the virtual tape management
central processing unit;
( c) detect any and all events that need to be
reported, accepting messages from said virtual
tape management central processing unit and
then reporting or writing those events back to the
operator console in the form of messages;
( d) automatically update and modify said catalog on
said mainframe host based on activity of said
virtual tape system catalog; and
( e) obtain information from said mainframe host
catalog for transfer to said virtual tape
management central processing unit.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson (U.S. 2004/0006702 Al; pub. Jan. 8, 2004)
("Johnson") in view of Anglin et al. (U.S. 6,023,709; iss. Feb. 8, 2000)
("Anglin"). (See Final Office Action (mailed May 15, 2014) ("Final Act.")
3-8.)
3
Appeal2015-005203
Application 12/548,554
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5.
Argument One
Neither Johnson nor Anglin Teaches
"At Least One Mainframe Host Processor ...
Having an Operator Console .. . "
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Johnson teaches the "at
least one mainframe host processor ... "limitation. (Final Act. 4.)
Specifically, the Examiner finds paragraph 153 of Johnson teaches a
"mainframe [that] includes an inboard Virtual Tape System (VTS)
component for processing the mainframe's tape catalog information .... "
(Id.; see Johnson, Fig. 1, i-f 153.) Appellant, however, contends that
nowhere does Johnson describe or teach an operator console
communicably attached to a mainfi·ame host CPU. Johnson does
not teach or suggest the Claim 1 limitation of "a system to
facilitate . . . at least one mainframe host processor central
processing unit having ... an operator console communicably
attached thereto . . . and Anglin et al. does not cure this
deficiency.
(Id. 6-7, emphasis added.)
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred because
Appellant's assertion in this regard is mere attorney argument, which is
unsupported by factual evidence. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art."); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
4
Appeal2015-005203
Application 12/548,554
Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover,
we agree with, and adopt, the Examiner's finding that Johnson teaches this
limitation:
Johnson discloses at paragraph, 0153, the mainframe includes
an inboard Virtual Tape System (VTS) component [(i.e., the
"mainframe host processor central processing unit")] which
acts on behalf of the host to allocate VTS emulated devices
retrieved from the mainframe's tape catalog, Fig. 1.
. . . Johnson further discloses at paragraph 0070 that an
administrator has the ability to manage the behavior of the virtual
tape system. Given that an administrator is required to interact
with the system one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that
an operator's console was required for implementation of
Johnson's invention and it could have been in the form of a 3270
device. Therefore Johnson discloses "at least one mainframe
host processor central processing unit having an inboard catalog
therein storing tape related information and having an operator
console communicably attached thereto".
(Ans. 2-3, emphasis added; Final Act. 4.) Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Argument Two
Neither Johnson nor Anglin Teaches "Software for Storage
and Organization of Messages ... By an Automation Platform"
The Examiner finds Johnson teaches the "software for storage and
organization ... "limitation. (Final Act. 4.) More particularly, the
Examiner finds Johnson teaches a "mainframe [that] includes an inboard
Virtual Tape System (VTS) component for processing the mainframe's tape
catalog information[, and] the VTS catalog is a tape repository [that]
manages storage resources and communicates messages with the inboard
5
Appeal2015-005203
Application 12/548,554
VTS component." (Id.; see Johnson, Fig. 1, claims 1and10, i-fi-f 152-153.)
Appellant, however, contends that
paragraphs 0152-53 of Johnson describes transfer of catalog
information for catalogue updating, not storage and
organization of messages for collection by an automation
platform . . . Johnson does not teach or suggest the Claim 1
limitation of "software for storage and organization of messages
for collection by an automation platform," and Anglin et al. does
not cure this deficiency.
(Id. 6-7, emphasis added.)
We are not persuaded that Appellants have shown the Examiner erred.
Appellant's assertion, in this regard, is mere attorney argument, which is
unsupported by factual evidence. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. In
addition, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's determination that
"Johnson teaches 'software for storage and organization of messages for
collection by an automation platform"':
Johnson further discloses at paragraphs 0152-153, and in claims
1 and 1 O; the VTS catalog is a tape repository which manages
storage resources and communicates messages with the inboard
VTS component (located in the host), the messages include a
scratch list and a vault list, Fig. 1. Johnson ....
(Ans. 3, emphasis added; see also Johnson, i121 ("The invention's virtual
tape catalog component is a database repository of tape related information
regarding each virtual tape used by the tape emulator. .. "), i-fi-f 152-153,
claim 1 ("second software for facilitating remote configuration and
utilization of said virtual tape management central processing unit"), claim
10.)
6
Appeal2015-005203
Application 12/548,554
Argument Three
Neither Johnson nor Anglin Teaches
Software To "Issue Commands to the Mainframe Host
as Received from the Virtual Tape Management Central Processing Unit"
The Examiner finds that paragraphs 153 to 157 of Johnson teach the
limitation at issue. (Final Act. 5.) Appellant, however, contends that this
limitation "is in direct opposition to the teachings of Johnson." (Br. 7.) The
Examiner disagrees and concludes the term "mean[ s] bi-directional
communication between the host and the virtual tape device" because "the
claim language ... is unclear [regarding] what events occur to 'issue
commands to the mainframe host .... "' (Ans. 4.) Therefore, according to
the Examiner, paragraphs 153 to 157 of Johnson teach the limitation because
"the inboard VTS component issues commands to the host as they are
received from the tape system, Fig. 1," i.e., communication between the host
and the virtual tape device. (Id.)
Appellant has not offered persuasive argument that the Examiner's
interpretation of the term is either overbroad or unreasonable. Thus, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Argument Four
Neither Johnson nor Anglin Teaches "Detecting Any and All Events ... "
The Examiner finds that paragraphs 157 to 161 of Johnson teach the
limitation at issue. (Final Act. 5.) According to the Examiner, "the VTS (in
Johnson) reports all events requiring reporting to the administrator for
interactive review." (Id.) Appellant, however, contends that "Johnson
describes a scenario in which an administrator requests information, rather
than having it automatically provided." (Br. 8.) The Examiner disagrees
and states that the administrator can use an operator's console to interact
7
Appeal2015-005203
Application 12/548,554
with the system and modifying the Host DLL configurations, the VTS
reports all events requiring reporting to the administrator, for example,
Johnson ... at paragraph 0052, [teaches that] if for any reason a
tape mount cannot be satisfied a message is sent up through the
control path to the host information component in order for the
operator message to be issued indicating the reason for being
unable to service the request
(Ans. 4--5; see also Johnson, 52, 157-161.)
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Again,
Appellant's assertion, in this regard, is mere attorney argument, which is
unsupported by factual evidence. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
Argument Five
Anglin Does Not Teach "Obtain and Review Any and All ... "
Appellant contends that Anglin does not teach the "obtain and review
any and all console messages ... "limitation. (Br. 8.) Appellant contends
that "[t]he Examiner, []misconstrued column 6, lines 16-42 of Anglin,
which describes a console parser which transfers error messages to update a
status table; it does not relay messages for automated responses or issue
commands as does the present invention." (Br. 8.)
We are not persuaded that Appellant has shown the Examiner erred.
"[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). (Ans. 5.) Moreover, we
agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of
Johnson and Anglin:
Johnson discloses at paragraph, 0153, the mainframe includes an
inboard Virtual Tape System (VTS) component which acts on
behalf of the host to allocate VTS emulated devices retrieved
8
Appeal2015-005203
Application 12/548,554
from the mainframe's tape catalog, Fig. 1. Anglin teaches at col.
6, lines 16-42, an automated systems administrator 20 which
includes a Console Parser 28 thread that determines if the
consoles messages are relevant to the tape library 10. Relevant
messages automatically update volume status table 22 with the
relevant information, Fig. 2. Given that the console parser thread
determines which console messages are relevant and said
messages are used to update the volume status table, the software
must perform automation steps in response to console messages.
(Ans. 5---6; Final Act. 5---6.) We also find that the Examiner's rejection
articulates a reasoning with a rational underpinning for why a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would combine Johnson
and Anglin. (Final Act. 6-7.) See KSR Int'! Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 415, 418 (2007).
Argument Six
Anglin Does Not Teach
"Automatically Update and ModifY Said Catalog ... "
The Examiner finds that column 6, lines 16-42 of Anglin teaches the
"automatically update and modify said catalog ... " limitation:
[Anglin col. 6, lines 16-42, the volume status table 22 is
automatically updated with the relevant information from the
console, Fig. 2]
(Final Act. 6.) Appellant, however, contends that Anglin does not teach this
limitation because "the invention in Anglin does nothing so complex, but
only relays previously generated messages." (Br. 8.) We are not persuaded
that Appellant has shown the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner
that "the volume status table 22 is automatically updated with the relevant
information from the console ... [and i]n this case the volume status table
serves the same purpose as Johnson's mainframe VTS catalog, maintaining
an updated view of tape resources." (Id. at 6; Anglin, Fig. 2; 6:16-42.)
9
Appeal2015-005203
Application 12/548,554
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-5, which are not argued separately.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10