Ex Parte Karpuram

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

11970930 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111970,930 01/08/2008 Venkata Ramana Karpuram
51067 7590 04/29/2016
PVF -- ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
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.
OR07-25301 3952
EXAMINER
SCOTT, RANDY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
j eannie@parklegal.com
syadmin@parklegal.com
wendy@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VENKATA RAMANA KARPURAM1
Appeal2014-008222
Application 11/970,930
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-22, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 have been
cancelled. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies Oracle International Corporation as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-008222
Application 11/970,930
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention is directed to" ... [automatically identifying
components to monitor in an enterprise environment]." Spec. Title.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method for automatically identifying components to
monitor in an enterprise environment, the method comprising:
scanning the enterprise environment for a deployed
container associated with a distributed enterprise application;
discovering a software component of the enterprise
application, wherein the software component is associated with
a container cluster to which the deployed container belongs;
determining a software cluster of the enterprise
environment to which the software component belongs;
determining hardware components that host the software
cluster;
adding, to a monitor list, the hardware components and
members of the software cluster; and
creating a monitoring group so that the monitoring
group includes software components and hardware components
in the monitor list that are coupled to a user-specified node.
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chase et al.
("Chase")
Garrett
US 2004/0221267 Al
US 2006/0085530 Al
2
Nov. 4, 2004
Apr. 20, 2006
Appeal2014-008222
Application 11/970,930
Tsyganskiy et al. US 2006/0241961 Al Oct. 26, 2006
("Tsyganskiy")
Dowling US 7 ,554,959 B 1 June 30, 2009 (filed
Oct. 15, 2003)
Felton et al. US 7,664,756 Bl Feb. 16, 2010 (filed
("Felton") Oct. 7, 2005)
Mackay US 7,716,660 B2 May 11, 2010 (filed
Dec. 14, 2004)
Beaty et al. US 2011/0131330 Al June 2, 2011 (filed
("Beaty") Dec. 2, 2009)
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-3, 9, 11-13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable Felton, Chase, and Garrett. Non-Final Act.
3-9.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Felton, Chase, Garrett, and Dowling. Non-Final
Act. 9-10.
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Felton, Chase, Garrett, and Tsyganskiy. Non-Final Act.
10.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Felton, Chase, Garrett, and Mackay. Non-Final Act. 10-
11.
Claims 21and22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Felton, Chase, Garrett, and Beaty. Non-Final Act. 11-12.
3
Appeal2014-008222
Application 11/970,930
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Felton, Chase, and
Garrett teaches or reasonably suggests "creating a monitoring group so that
the monitoring group includes software components and hardware
components in the monitor list that are coupled to a user-specified node"
(hereinafter the "disputed limitation"), as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS2
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner has erred. Br. 12-19. We disagree with
Appellant's conclusions. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Non-Final Act. 2-12), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Answer in response to arguments made in Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-
7). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below.
Appellant contends "there is nothing in Felton, Chase, and Garrett,
either expressly or inherently, that discloses" the disputed limitation. Br. 12.
In particular, Appellant asserts "given that the Garrett system adds all
detected virtual machines to the resource groups" (Br. 17-18 (citing Garrett
i-fi-127, 30)), Garrett does not create "a monitor[ing] group to include only
components in the monitor list" (Br. 18 (emphasis added)). In support of
this contention, Appellant directs attention to sections of Appellant's
2 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed March
17, 2014), the Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed
September 16, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed on May
22, 2014).
4
Appeal2014-008222
Application 11/970,930
Specification that allegedly teach advantages why only components from the
monitor list are used to create the monitor group, such as to "allow[] a user
to modify the monitor list to configure the components that can be added
into the monitor group." Br. 18 n.16 (citing Spec. i-fi-16-8).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. As an initial matter, we note
the claim language is silent as to whether the monitoring group only includes
components in the monitor list. Contrary to Appellant's argument, the
monitoring group "includes software components and hardware components
in the monitor list," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). Accordingly,
Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, and,
for that reason, does not demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection. See
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in
the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the
Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this
case, though Appellant's cited sections of Appellant's Specification involves
criteria for adding software and hardware components to a monitor list
(Spec. i-fi-1 6-8), Appellant provides no evidence or reasoning supporting an
interpretation of what is required for the inclusion of software and hardware
components from a monitor list to a monitoring group that would distinguish
over the teachings of Felton, Chase, and Garrett. Thus, under a broadest
reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation consistent with the
Specification, the disputed software and hardware components may be
5
Appeal2014-008222
Application 11/970,930
understood to also include components other than only from the monitor list.
Paragraph 37 of Garrett, relied on by the Examiner, recites:
For instance, the admission control criteria might establish
minimum hardware requirements for the host of each virtual
machine 335, such as an amount of memory on the physical
computer node 310 hosting a virtual machine. Such admission
control criteria can, in tum, allow for the generation of a
preferred list of nodes 310 that a given resource, such as a virtual
machine, should reside on.
Garrett ,-r 37. As the Examiner explains, and we agree, Garrett teaches a
preferred list of nodes (310) (the claimed "monitor list") on which the
resources (the claimed "software components and hardware components")
reside. Ans. 4 (citing Garrett i-fi-119, 37). Further, paragraph 19 of Garrett,
relied on by the Examiner (Ans. 4), recites:
A resource refers to any entity that may be monitored, controlled
or managed, such as a service, application process, system path
or logical address, IP address, node (e.g., a storage device or
server), netv,rork information card (NIC), network device (e.g., a
router or bridge), computer alias, database or any other suitable
entity. Resource groups may be formed comprising one or more
resources to be monitored, and the infrastructure (e.g., one or
more data structures, commands, parameters, attributes, etc.)
which enables the resources to be monitored by the automatic
availability software. Resources groups may be created to
monitor a collection of resources that each is provided by a single
node or shared by multiple nodes.
Garrett ,-r 19. The Examiner explains, "the created resource group ... is
formed in order to enable resources (e.g.[,] applications, as disclosed in par
[0012], lines 1-5 of Garrett and physical nodes, as disclosed in par [0019],
lines 1-3 of Garrett) to be monitored." Ans. 4. We find Garrett suggests the
resources included in the preferred list of nodes (310) disclosed in paragraph
6
Appeal2014-008222
Application 11/970,930
37 of Garrett are also the resources in the resource groups disclosed in
paragraph 19 of Garrett. Thus, under a broadest reasonable interpretation,
we agree with the Examiner in finding Garrett teaches creating resource
groups (the claimed "monitoring group") including resources (such as
applications and physical nodes) (the claimed "software components and
hardware components") in the preferred list of nodes (310) on which the
resources should reside (the claimed "monitor list").
Appellant also asserts the Garrett system does not generate the
monitor group to include software components and hardware components in
a monitor list "that are coupled to the user-specified node," as claimed. Br.
18-19. In particular, Appellant contends given that "the Garrett system
identifies all virtual machines in all nodes of a computer cluster, and
generates resource groups to include these virtual machines" (Br. 18 (citing
Garrett i-fi-127, 30)), Garrett "does not allow a user to specify a cluster node
as a basis for a monitor group" (Br. 18-19). In support of this contention,
Appellant again directs attention to sections of Appellant's Specification that
teach the involvement of a user to request a monitoring group creation by
specifying a node of the enterprise environment. Br. 19 n.18 (citing Spec.
,-r,-r 21-23, 42, 47).
Appellant's contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Appellant
provides no evidence or reasoning supporting an interpretation of the
disputed user-specified node or what is required for software and hardware
components from a monitor list to be coupled to the user-specified node that
would distinguish over the teachings of Felton, Chase, and Garrett. At best,
Appellant provides instances involving a "user" or "administrator" in the
Specification stating, the "process takes place without the aid of an
7
Appeal2014-008222
Application 11/970,930
administrator or a user" (Spec. if 22), and a request to create a monitoring
group "can come from a user or an administrator" (Spec. if 42). Further, we
note Appellant's Amendment, filed March 16, 2011 after the original filing
date, adding the user-specified node limitation, is further indicative of the
lack of a relevant limiting definition of user-specified node in Appellant's
Specification.
Paragraph 16 of Garrett, relied on by the Examiner, recites:
System 1000 may be managed by a system administrator who
may monitor the state of applications, workload on nodes 110,
and other metrics, thereby determining how to best respond to
events, including failure or performance degradation. For
example, failure on a specific node may prompt the administrator
to migrate applications hosted on the failing node to other
functioning nodes in the cluster 100.
Garrett if 16. As the Examiner explains, Garrett teaches an administrator
"controls and specifies which resources are to be monitored and which nodes
require monitoring." ii .. ns. 5 (citing Garrett if 16). Therefore, under a broad
but reasonable interpretation, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by
finding Garrett teaches coupling another functioning node by an
administrator (the claimed "user-specified node") to the preferred list of
nodes (310) on which the resources should reside (the claimed "monitor
list", as discussed supra). Thus, we find Garrett teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent
claim 1 and, for the same reasons, independent claims 11 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Felton, Chase, and Garrett
together with the rejections of dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, 12-15, 18, and
19, which were not argued separately.
Claims 21 and 22
8
Appeal2014-008222
Application 11/970,930
The Examiner relies on a combination of references including Beaty
in rejecting claims 21and22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Non-Final Act. 11-
12. However, because Beaty's filing date of December 2, 2009 is
subsequent to Appellant's filing date (January 8, 2008), Beaty is not
properly prior art to the claims on appeal. Therefore, we reverse the 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21 and 22.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 21and22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
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-IN-PART
9