Ex Parte Kinnan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2012

11262020 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KEITH R. KINNAN, DARREN J. CEPULIS,
JEFFREY R. HILLAND, and DAVID A. JOY
____________________

Appeal 2010-005735
Application 11/262,020
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005735
Application 11/262,020

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-25, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to a distributed managed system, system
components, and methods of communicating commands. Claims 1 and 21,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 . A distributed managed system, including:
a plurality of targets, including a first target;
a plurality of clients, each client adapted to originate one
or more commands, at least some commands having a desired
destination of one or more targets, including the first target; and
a management processor adapted to receive commands
originated by the plurality of clients and generate a context
value for each received command having a desired destination
of one or more targets, the context value indicating a particular
client that originated a corresponding command:
wherein the management processor adds the context
value to each corresponding command to create corresponding
commands with context and dispatches each command with
context to the desired destination;
wherein at least one target, including the first target, is
adapted to receive commands with context from the
management processor, interpret the context value in each
received command with context to identify the particular client
that originated the corresponding command with context,
determine a priority and sequence for processing the received
commands with context using multi-user/multi-tasking policies,
the determined priority and sequence based at least in part on
the context value associated with the corresponding commands
with context, and process the received commands with context
according to the determined priority and sequence, and targets
Appeal 2010-005735
Application 11/262,020

3
include intelligence that processes and implements the received
commands with context using multi-user/multi-tasking policies
so management and command line processing of the commands
are distributed to the targets instead of the management
processor.

21. A method of communicating commands in a distributed
managed system, including:
a) receiving commands originating from a plurality of clients at
a management processor, at least some commands having a
desired destination of one or more targets;
b) generating a context value for each received command
having a desired destination of the one or more targets, the
context value indicating a particular client originating a
corresponding command;
c) adding, at the management processor, the context value to
each corresponding command to create corresponding
commands with context; and
d) dispatching each command with context from the
management processor to a corresponding desired destination
of the one or more targets, wherein each of the targets decides
how to handle received commands with respect to local multi-
tasking policies so management of the multi-tasking policies is
distributed to the targets instead of maintaining centralized
control of the multi-tasking policies at the management
processor.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yeager
Sanghvi
US 7,254,608 B2
US 7,412,501 B2
Aug. 7, 2007
Aug. 12, 2008
Davidson US 2005/0235055 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
Appeal 2010-005735
Application 11/262,020

4

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sanghvi and Davidson. Ans. 3.
Claims 1-20 and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sanghvi, Davidson, and Yeager. Ans. 11.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS2
Claims 21 and 22
The Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) module of
Sanghvi does not add a context value to commands and therefore fails to
disclose, while forwarding a message, adding a context value that indicates
the client that originated a command. App. Br. 18-19.
Claims 1-9 and 23-25
The WMI module of Sanghvi manages policies instead of utilizing
“targets that include intelligence that processes and implements the received
commands with context using multi-user/multitasking policies so
management and command line processing of the commands are distributed
to the targets instead of the management processor.” App. Br. 21.

1 Based on the dependencies of the claims, we decide the appeal of the
rejection of claims 21 and 22 on the basis of claim 21, the rejection of claims
1-9 and 23-25 on the basis of claim 1, and the rejection of claims 10-20 on
the basis of claim 10.
2 We note that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues; however, we
do not reach these issues as these contentions are dispositive of the appeal.
Appeal 2010-005735
Application 11/262,020

5
Claims 10-20
The event filter of Sanghvi fails to function as the claimed
management processor to receive commands, add context values indicating a
particular client that originated the command to the command, and send the
command with the context value to a target. App. Br. 23.

ISSUE
Whether the combination of Sanghvi and Davidson teaches or
suggests adding context values indicating a particular client that originated a
command to and forwarding the command.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 15-27.

Claims 21 and 22
The Examiner cites to Sanghvi column 6, lines 25-36 for disclosing
the disputed step of adding, at the management processor, a context value to
each corresponding command to create corresponding commands with
context. Ans. 4. Appellants dispute this finding, contending that the
Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) module of Sanghvi does not
add a context value to commands and therefore fails to disclose that, while
forwarding a message, adding a context value that indicates the client that
originated a command. App. Br. 18-19. The Examiner responds that the
forwarded messages, in the form of Sanghvi’s event consumers, “may
comprise multiple destination addresses represented in one of three formats
Appeal 2010-005735
Application 11/262,020

6
read as the Claimed generation of content value, that are generated from
client applications read as the Claimed clients originating commands.” Ans.
34 (citation to Sanghvi, col. 15, ll. 5-12, omitted).
We disagree with the Examiner that the cited portion of Sanghvi
discloses the disputed claim limitation. While Sanghvi does disclose that the
target property of a forwarding consumer can contain one or more
destination addresses in one of three formats (Sanghvi, col. 16, ll. 5-8), there
is no mention of providing an indication of the originating client, i.e. a
context value. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that there is no
disclosure of an addition to a command that includes a context value that
indicates the client that originated the command and will not sustain the
rejection of claim 21. For this reason, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claim 22.

Claims 1-9 and 23-25
Appellants contend that the WMI module of Sanghvi manages
policies instead of utilizing “targets that include intelligence that processes
and implements the received commands with context using multi-
user/multitasking policies so management and command line processing of
the commands are distributed to the targets instead of the management
processor,” as per claim 1. App. Br. 21. The Examiner responds that the
High Performance Computing (HPC) clusters “could include any hardware,
software, firmware, or combination thereof operable to dynamically allocate
and manage nodes.” Ans. 35.
We agree with the Appellants. The disputed language requires more
than intelligence, it requires “intelligence that processes and implements the
Appeal 2010-005735
Application 11/262,020

7
received commands with context using multi-user/multi-tasking policies so
management and command line processing of the commands are distributed
to the targets instead of the management processor.” The Examiner has not
shown that Davidson, singularly or in combination with Sanghvi and
Yeager, teaches or suggests the specified actions including processing of
command with context3. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 1or of claims 2-9 dependent therefrom. For these reasons we will also
not sustain the rejection of claim 24 or of claim 25 dependent therefrom.
The rejection of claim 23 will not be sustained based on its
dependency from claim 22, the rejection of which we find to have been in
error as discussed supra.
Claims 10-20
Appellants contend that the event filter of Sanghvi fails to function as
the claimed management processor to receive commands, add context values
indicating a particular client that originated the command to the command,
and send the command with the context value to a target. App. Br. 23. The
Examiner responds at page 37 of the Answer by providing the same
explanation as provided in connection with the similar contention made in
connection with claim 21. Cf. Ans. 34. Therefore, for the reasons presented
supra in connection with claim 21, we find that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 10 and will therefore not sustain the rejection of claim 10 or
of claims 11-20 dependent therefrom.

3 Appellants’ Specification defines “commands with context” to include “a
combination of a command and a context value. The context value is
generated by an MP and indicates a particular client that originated the
command. The context value is added to the command by the MP and the
combination is dispatched to one or more targets.” Spec. [0018].
Appeal 2010-005735
Application 11/262,020

8

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject independent claims 1, 10, 21, 22, and 24. Thus, we will not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-25 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc