Ex Parte Kline

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2010

10632620 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER NORMAN KLINE
__________

Appeal 2009-005248
Application 10/632,620
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: May 24, 2010
__________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-31. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-005248
Application 10/632,620

2
The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to scheduling and execution
of jobs in a computer system (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 21 is illustrative:
21. A computer implemented method for managing a change
to a setting of a computer program of a computer system, said method
comprising the steps of:
automatically attempting to change a setting of a computer
program, and
if said setting of said computer program is successfully
changed, said computer program writing a predetermined
return code to a log file,
if said setting of said computer program is not successfully
changed, said computer program not writing said return
code to said log file, and
in response to the step of automatically attempting to change
said setting of said computer program, automatically searching said
log file for said return code, and
if said log file contains said return code, automatically sending
a notification that said setting of said computer program
was successfully changed, and
if said log file does not contain said return code, automatically
sending a notification that said setting of said computer
program was not successfully changed.

The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Boukobza US 6,122,664 Sep. 19, 2000
Wilson US 2002/0166053 A1 Nov. 07, 2002
(filed May 02, 2001)
Appeal 2009-005248
Application 10/632,620

3
Morrison US 7,089,561 B2 Aug. 08, 2006
(filed Jun. 01, 2001)

Nathan J. Muller, Focus On Open View, A Guide to Hewlett-
Packard’s Network and Systems Management Platform (CBM Books,
1995) (“Open View”).

Admitted Prior Art, Specification, Background of the Invention, page
1 (“APA”).

The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejects claims 21, 23-25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over APA, Morrison, and Open View.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 22 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over APA, Morrison, Open View, and Boukobza.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over APA, Morrison, Open View, and Wilson.

Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 21 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE 1
Appellant asserts that “the cited APA, Morrison, and/or OpenView
references . . . fail to disclose ‘automatically attempting to change a setting
of a computer program, and . . . in response to the step of automatically
Appeal 2009-005248
Application 10/632,620

4
attempting to change said setting of said computer program, automatically
searching said log file’” (App. Br. 7).
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of APA,
Morrison, and Open View discloses or suggests automatically attempting to
change a setting of a computer program and automatically searching a log
file for a return code in response to the automatic attempt to change the
setting of the computer program?

ISSUE 2
Appellant asserts that Morrison fails to disclose or suggest “changing
a setting of a computer program” or “any return value associated with a
change in a setting of a computer program” (App. Br. 8).
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of APA,
Morrison, and Open View discloses or suggests changing a setting of a
computer program and a value or code associated with the change?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. APA discloses that “[s]ystems administrators are often required to
make configuration and other changes to computer system” (Spec.
1).
Appeal 2009-005248
Application 10/632,620

5
2. APA discloses that “the systems administrator has entered
commands or initiated a script which identified an application
instance which is the target of the change, and issued change
commands via an application interface” (Spec. 1).
3. APA discloses that the “systems administrator then made a change to
the application instance, either manually or via a prepared script”
(Spec. 1).
4. APA discloses that the systems administrator “verified that the
change was made successfully by manually checking the output of
the change and searching for certain codes and phrases in output
either displayed on the screen or stored in temporary logs” (Spec. 1).
5. APA discloses that the systems administrator “has entered
commands or initiated a script which issued operating system
commands” and “verified that the change was made successfully by
reviewing the output of those commands, as well as the exit status of
each command” (Spec. 1).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
Appeal 2009-005248
Application 10/632,620

6
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
APA discloses an administrator changing an application via a
prepared script (FF 1-5). Since execution of a script causes the application
to change and since the script causes the change automatically (i.e., without
further manual input), we agree with the Examiner that the application is
modified automatically by the script. As such, we find that APA discloses
automatically attempting to change a setting of a computer program (via
execution of a script).
In addition, APA discloses that “certain codes” are “stored in
temporary logs” (FF 1-5) and that these codes may be displayed on a screen.
We agree with the Examiner that the system automatically searches for the
codes in the log because the system disclosed in APA displays the codes,
which would have been first identified in and output from the temporary log
(since the codes would not have been displayed without first being identified
for display). Since the codes are available for display if they are generated
(and therefore exist) and they are generated if the script automatically
Appeal 2009-005248
Application 10/632,620

7
modifies the application, we find that it would at least have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to display the codes following execution of
the script to modify the application. As such, the system automatically
searches a file for the codes “in response to” modifying the application.
Even assuming arguendo Appellant’s contention that APA fails to
disclose or suggest “automatically” attempting to change a program setting
and/or in response, “automatically” searching a log file for a code in a log,
we further note that broadly providing an automatic way to replace a manual
activity, which accomplishes the same result, is not sufficient to distinguish
over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958); Leapfrog
Ent., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(“Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been
commonplace in recent years.”).
Independent claims 21, 25, and 29 recite similar features of
automatically attempting to change a program or file and automatically
searching or querying for a code. For at least the aforementioned reasons,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, and of claims 22-31, which
fall therewith, with respect to issue 1.

Issue 2
As discussed above, we find that APA discloses changing (or
attempting to change) a setting of a program (FF 1-3) and a log that contains
a code indicating the program change (i.e., writing a code into a file if the
Appeal 2009-005248
Application 10/632,620

8
program is changed) (FF 4). In view of these explicit teachings, we disagree
with the Appellant that the combination of APA, Morrison, and Open View
fails to disclose or suggest these features.
Independent claims 21, 25, and 29 recite similar features of changing
a program or file and a log containing a code indicating the change. For at
least the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 21, and of claims 22-31, which fall therewith, with respect to issue 2.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in:
1. finding that the combination of APA, Morrison, and Open View
discloses or suggests automatically attempting to change a setting of a
computer program and automatically searching a log file for a return code in
response to the automatic attempt to change the setting of the computer
program (issue 1) and
2. finding that the combination of APA, Morrison, and Open View
discloses or suggests changing a setting of a computer program and a value
or code associated with the change (issue 2).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2009-005248
Application 10/632,620

9
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

msc

CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A.
200 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD
SUITE 2040
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301