Ex Parte Mouravyov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12966643 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/966,643 12/13/2010 Sergei MOURAVYOV 82264424 9160
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
WU, TSUNG YIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGEI MOURAVYOV and
BRINDUSA MARIA KEVORKIAN
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,6431
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, SHARON FENICK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—7 and 9—20. (Appeal Br. 5.) Claim 8 was cancelled.
(Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a system for maintaining an inventory
of network nodes and their configurations. (Spec. 12.) Assigned trust
levels (ATLs) are applied to configuration data, and decay formulae are
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
applied to compute remaining trust levels (RTLs) for data. (Id. Abstract.)
Data sets are consolidated to reconcile apparent inconsistencies. (Id.)
Representative Claims
Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below with certain key limitations
emphasized, are representative:
1. A computer-implemented process comprising:
collecting network-inventory data from network devices,
the network-inventory data including first server-configuration
data collected from a server characterizing a configuration of
the server, the network-inventory data including second server-
configuration data collected from a network-infrastructure
device characterizing a configuration of the server; and
consolidating the network-inventory data to yield
consolidated data, the consolidating including reconciling
apparent inconsistencies between the first and second server-
configuration data by comparing first and second remaining
trust levels (RTLs).
14. A system as recited in Claim 11 wherein the inventory-data
manager collects said first and second server-configuration data
over in-band and out-of-band networks.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—7 and 9—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter. (Answer 14—15.)
The Examiner rejects claims 1—7, 9-13, and 15—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Yamamoto (US 2003/0208589 Al; Nov. 6, 2003)
and Hoang et al. (US 2007/0156766 Al; pub. July 5, 2007) (hereinafter
“Hoang”). (Final Action 3—14.)
The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Yamamoto, Hoang, and Sullivan et al. (US 2006/0074927 Al; pub.
Apr. 6, 2006) (hereinafter “Sullivan”). (Final Action 14—15.)
2
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
Issues
(A) Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as directed to non-
statutory subject matter?
(B) Did the Examiner err in finding Yamamoto, in combination with
Hoang, teaches or suggests consolidating network-inventory data to yield
consolidated data including reconciling apparent inconsistencies between
data, as recited in claim 1 ?
(C) Did the Examiner err in finding Hoang, in combination with
Yamamoto, teaches or suggests a remaining trust level (RTL), as recited in
claim 1?
(D) Did the Examiner err in finding Hoang, in combination with
Yamamoto, teaches or suggests time stamping the data and computing first
and second RTLs based on the time stamps, as recited in claim 3?
(E) Did the Examiner err in finding Hoang, in combination with
Yamamoto, teaches or suggests assigning assigned trust levels to sets of
configuration data, as recited in claim 4?
(F) Did the Examiner err in finding Yamamoto, in combination with
Hoang, teaches or suggests server-configuration data including address
resolution data obtained from a network infrastructure device, as recited in
claim 15?
(G) Did the Examiner err in finding Sullivan, in combination with
Yamamoto and Hoang, teaches or suggests the collection of first and second
server-configuration data over in-band and out-of-band networks, as recited
in claim 14?
3
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
ANALYSIS
(A) 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
The Examiner concludes claims 1—7 and 9—20 are not patent eligible
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because “the claim[s] fail[] to recite elements that
amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.” (Answer 14—15.)
For claimed subject matter to be patent eligible, it must fall into one of
four statutory classes set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101: a process, a machine, a
manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 7 and 11 and their
dependent claims are directed to machines (including, for example, “[a]
system comprising a processor and non-transitory storage media encoded
with code” in claim 7 and “[a] system comprising computer-readable storage
media encoded with code” in claim 11). Claim 1 and its dependent claims
are directed processes.
Even for inventions which are in one of the statutory classes, the
Supreme Court has set forth three exceptions of subject matter ineligible for
patent protection: “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010) (internal quotations and citation
omitted). The Supreme Court has held that a claim falls
outside § 101 where (1) it is directed to a patent-ineligible
concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract
idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim,
considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do
not add enough to transform the nature of the claim into a
patent-eligible application.
Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (internal quotes omitted) (quoting Alice Corp. v. CLSBankInt’l, 134
S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014)).
4
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
As the first step of the Alice analysis, we must determine if the claims
at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea.
See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Here, the claims recite a method comprising
data collection and data manipulation (consolidation) (claim 1) or systems
which implement such data collection and manipulation (claims 7 and 11).
The Specification shows that an inventory data collector 108 collects
inventory data, and an inventory data manager 110 generates
remaining/relative trust levels (RTLs) for the collected data and generates
consolidated inventory data. (Spec. Tflf 10-11.)
We agree with the Examiner (Answer 14) that such data collection
and manipulation constitute organization of information and are subject to a
judicial exception as abstract. Specifically, “[wjithout additional limitations,
a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing
information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.”
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (discussing a claim which “recites a process of taking two
data sets and combining them into a single data set”).
Appellants argue that the claims recite more than organizing and
comparing information, and are thus not directed to the judicial exception of
an abstract idea. Appellants also argue that the claims fall outside the
exception because (a) data is collected from a server and a network-
infrastructure device, and (b) data is merged or combined. (Reply Br. 2.)
However, the collection of data has been found by our reviewing court to be
included in the “the basic concept of data recognition and storage.” See
Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass ’n,
776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that a claim drawn to “data
5
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
collection, recognition, and storage” meets the Alice first step as an abstract
idea). Further, the combination of data has similarly been found to be
abstract under an Alice consideration. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350-51.
Unlike the claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2016), no specifics distinguish the claim elements from conventional
data collection or manipulation. We find no error in the Examiner’s finding
that the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.
With respect to the second step of the Alice analysis, requiring us to
determine whether additional elements of the claim “transform the nature of
the claim into a patent-eligible application” {Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355
(internal quotations omitted)), Appellants argue that the claim provides
improvements to the functioning of a computer or computer network
because “management of a computer network system would benefit from the
claimed invention” and advantages in maintaining a computer system are
disclosed in the Specification. (Reply Br. 3.) However, this argument is not
linked to any specific limitations or elements of the claim directed to the
management of the computer network system using, e.g., the consolidated
data or benefits of such management. Thus, the claims here focus “not on
such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently
abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at
1354; compare with Enfish, LLC, 822 F.3d at 1339 (holding that claims at
issue were patent eligible where “directed to a specific implementation of a
solution to a problem in the software arts”).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 and 9—
20 as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the reasons explained
above.
6
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
(B) 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection — Claim 1
“consolidating the network-inventory data to yield consolidated data ”
Appellants argue Yamamoto does not teach or suggest the
consolidation of network-inventory data, as recited in claim 1, but merely
the detection of inconsistencies in the data. (Appeal Br. 11.) The Examiner
finds Yamamoto teaches the consolidation of network-inventory data,
including detecting inconsistencies and resolving detected inconsistencies.
(Final Action 4, 6—7, 9—10; Answer 16 (citing Yamamoto Tflf 6, 22, 25, 116,
162-163, Figs. 12b, 15).)
Yamamoto is directed towards the management of configuration
information for storage networks. (Yamamoto Abstract, |1.) Configuration
information regarding elements of the network are collected by a manager
and inconsistencies among the collected information are detected. {Id. Tflf 6,
22, 25.) An Inconsistency Fist 14150 is generated including all detected
inconsistencies. {Id. H 62, 113, Figs. 12b, 14a.)
The Examiner finds Yamamoto’s teachings of “putting multiple
server-configuration data together, detecting inconsistencies, and solving the
detected inconsistencies” teaches or suggests the claim limitation. (Answer
16—17.) Appellants agree Yamamoto detects inconsistencies, however, they
argue Yamamoto does not teach or suggest consolidating data. (Appeal Br.
11; Reply Br. 4—6.) Appellants contend the generation of Yamamoto’s
Inconsistency Fist 14150 constitutes “merely identifying inconsistencies, not
consolidating data.” (Reply Br. 5.) Further, Appellants assert, “[i]n essence,
the § 103 rejections improperly construe ‘consolidating’ to merely mean
‘considering’ or ‘organizing’ . . . thereby improperly eviscerating the
expressly-worded claim language.” {Id.)
7
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
We determine the scope of the claims by giving them their broadest
reasonable construction in light of the Specification as they would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
Lee, 136S. Ct. 2131, 2144-45 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard). We are mindful that “[wjhile the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard is broad, it does not give the
Board an unfettered license to interpret the words in a claim without regard
for the full claim language and the written description.” Trivascular, Inc. v.
Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Specification notes that “consolidate” is meant to “refer to
combining data to yield a single consistent whole, e.g., a consistent overview
of a computer network system.” (Spec. 144.) Thus, our determination must
be whether Yamamoto teaches or suggests the combination of data to yield a
consistent whole. We agree with the Examiner that it does. The
Inconsistency List is a combination of data yielding a single consistent
whole. While this whole yielded in Yamamoto is not a consistent overview
of a computer network, which is the non-limiting example provided in the
Specification, it is a single consistent overview of inconsistencies which
have been found by Yamamoto’s manager in the collected information, and
thus meets the Specification’s express definition.
Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 with respect to this issue.
8
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
(C) 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection —Claim 1
“remaining trust level (RTL) ”
The Examiner finds that Hoang, in combination with Yamamoto,
teaches or suggests consolidating data by comparing remaining trust levels
(RTLs) as recited in Claim 1. (Final Action 2, 4.) The Appellants argue:
Hoang merely discusses “trust scores” but fails to disclose or
render obvious consolidating data by comparing remaining trust
levels (RTLs).... In this manner, the Final Office Action fails
to properly construe “remaining trust level” and instead merely
equates this ... to a “trust score,” thereby eviscerating the
meaning of “remaining trust” or “remaining trust level.”
(Appeal Br. 12.)
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings that Hoang
discloses a “method of decaying the ‘trust’ of a piece of data over time”
(Final Action 2 (emphasis deleted)). Further, Hoang’s discussion of the
different rates of decay of this trust, and presentation of possible graphs for
reliability over time teaches or suggests an initial trust level (mapped to the
Appellants’ assigned trust level (ATL)) and decayed trust calculated as a
function of time (mapped to Appellants’ RTL). (Final Action 2, 4; Answer
18.)
Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 with respect to this issue.
As we have not been persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 by of Appellants’ arguments with respect to this claim, we affirm the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yamamoto
and Hoang. Additionally we affirm the rejection of independent claims 7
and 11, argued on the same basis (Appeal Br. 13), and of dependent claims
2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16, also argued on the same basis (Appeal Br. 16).
9
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
(D) 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection — Claim 3
time-stamping data and computing RTLs based on time stamps
The Examiner finds Hoang, in combination with Yamamoto, teaches
or suggests time stamping incoming data and computing RTLs with respect
to the passage of time. (Appeal Br. 5.) Appellants argue, with respect to
paragraph 98 of Hoang, that neither this paragraph “nor any other portion of
Hoang” teaches or discloses time-stamping data or computing remaining
trust levels based on time stamps. (Appeal Br. 14.)
However, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hoang teaches
timestamps on data sets. (Final Action 5 (citing Hoang | 80).) Additionally,
as discussed supra at (C), we agree with the Examiner that Hoang discloses
the computation of trust levels as a function of time. Therefore, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error in finding Hoang teaches or suggests both time-
stamping of data, and the computation of RTLs for data based in part on a
time stamp of the data.
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yamamoto and Hoang, and additionally affirm the rejection of
claim 17, argued on the same basis (Appeal Br. 13—14).
(E) 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection —Claim 4
assigned trust levels (ATLs)
The Examiner finds Hoang teaches or suggests assigning an ATL to a
data set. (Final Action 5—6; Reply Br. 19.) However, Appellants argue that
Hoang does not distinguish between two different trust scores, an ATL and
an RTL, and that the Examiner has eviscerated the distinction between them
in the findings. (Appeal Br. 14—15.)
We agree with and adopt the findings and conclusions of the
Examiner (Final Action 5—6; Answer 19) with respect to this argument.
10
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
Hoang’s teaching that a trust score calculator can calculate a trust score
based on algorithms such as a data decay algorithm shows an initial trust
score (the score before any decay, as shown at the intersection with the Y
axis in Hoang’s Fig. 13) (mapped to the ATL) and a diminished trust score,
recomputed after the passage of time (mapped to the RTL). (Answer 19;
Hoang || 96—98, Fig. 13.)
As we have not been persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 4, we affirm the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yamamoto and Hoang, and additionally we affirm the rejection
of claims 18—20, argued on the same basis (Appeal Br. 15).
(F) 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection — Claim 15
“address resolution data ”
The Examiner finds Yamamoto, in combination with Hoang, teaches
or suggests server-configuration data including address resolution data.
(Final Action 5—6; Reply Br. 20.) However, Appellants argue that, while
Yamamoto teaches IP addresses, this disclosure of address data does not
teach or suggest address resolution data. (Appeal Br. 15—16.) The Examiner
finds the broadest reasonable interpretation of “address resolution data”
includes “any data that relates to address resolution protocol, which includes
an IP address.” (Answer 20.)
We agree with the Examiner. The Specification discloses only that
address resolution information “can be gathered associating IP (Internet
Protocol) addresses with MAC (Media Access Code) addresses.” (Spec.
121.) An IP address is certainly an element of address resolution
information, and Appellants have not shown how the claims or the
Specification disclose any use of the address resolution information that
11
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
would require further limitation of the claimed “address resolution data.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of this claim term would include IP addresses, as taught by Yamamoto.
Thus, we have not been persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 15, and we affirm the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Yamamoto and Hoang.
(G) 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection — Claim 14
“in-band and out-of-band networks ”
The Examiner finds Sullivan, in combination with Yamamoto and
Hoang, teaches or suggests the claim limitation of the collection of data
“over in-band and out-of-band networks.” (Final Action 14.) Appellants
argue Sullivan does not disclose networks, but rather “in-band enclosure
management” and “in-band and out-of-band storage band enclosures.”
(Appeal Br. 17 (quoting Sullivan || 6, 18).)
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown in-band
and out-of-band networks in Sullivan. Thus, we reverse the rejection of this
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yamamoto, Hoang, and
Sullivan. However, this claim still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as
detailed supra at (A).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7 and 9—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7, 9—13, and 15—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
12
Appeal 2016-003154
Application 12/966,643
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
13