Ex Parte Murray et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 16, 2011

10445157 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRYAN P. MURRAY, NICOLAS CATANIA, HOMAYOUN M.
POURHEIDARI, and GUILLAUME N. VAMBENEPE
____________

Appeal 2009-009780
Application 10/445,157
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and STEPHEN
C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-28. The Appellants appeal
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

Appeal 2009-009780
Application 10/445,157

2
INVENTION
The Appellants describe the invention at issue on appeal as follows.
A system for managing an information technology (IT)
resource [includes] a managed object . . . represent[ing] a
particular resource. At least one interface is associated with the
managed object. The managed object . . . receive[s] a request
from a manager; forward[s] the request to a group of managed
objects specified by the request; gather[s] responses to the
request from the group . . . ; and transmit[s] the responses from
the group . . . to the manager in a single response.
(Spec. 33.)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A system for managing diverse information
technology (IT) resources, comprising:
a computer processor; and
a managed object executable on the computer processor,
wherein the managed object represents a particular resource;
at least one interface associated with the managed object,
wherein the managed object is configured to:
receive a request from a manager;
forward the request to a group of managed objects,
wherein the group of managed objects is specified by the
request;
gather responses to the request from the group of
managed objects;
transmit the responses from the group of managed
objects to the manager in a single response; and
the at least one interface is configured to allow the
manager to specify a management interface that provides
access to a management feature for the resource.

Appeal 2009-009780
Application 10/445,157

3
REJECTION
Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,490,255 B1 ("Kiriha") and U.S. Patent
No. 5,832,226 ("Suzuki").

DISCUSSION
Based on the Appellants' arguments, see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii),
and the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of claims 1-11
on the basis of claim 1, the appeal of claim 28 individually, and the appeal of
claims 12-27 on the basis of claim 23. Therefore, the issues before us
follow.
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kiriha would have suggested that
a manager's request specifies a group of managed objects, as required by
representative claim 1, or that a manager's request indicates resources
selected to receive the request, as required by representative claim 28?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kiriha would have suggested
providing information to a manager regarding a managed resource including
the relationships between a managed object representing features of the
resource and other managed objects associated therewith, as required by
representative 23?
We address the issues seriatim.

CLAIMS 1 AND 28
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual
determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and
inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
Appeal 2009-009780
Application 10/445,157

4
(citations omitted). "The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Here, we find that Kiriha describes its invention as "a network
management system for operating physical managed objects such as
communication equipment[ ] and communication services on the basis of an
instruction from a management manager . . . ." (Col. 1, ll. 13-16.) We
further find the reference explaining that "to operate physical objects to be
managed, such as communication equipment[ ] and communication services
within a communication network, a network management system has been
known in which physical objects to be managed are abstracted as managed
objects . . . ." (Id. at ll. 22-27.) We also find that Kiriha's "FIG. 38 shows
an operation flow of [a] managed object control portion 502" (col. 30, ll. 49-
50) for processing the aforementioned instruction from a management
manager.
Turning to the rejection on appeal, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that Kiriha "receive[s] a request [request of a lump operation of the
plurality of the received managed objects; col. 30, line 65 - col. 31, line 3]
from a manager [management manager; col. 11, lines 45 – 56" (Ans. 5),
"wherein the request indicates resources selected to receive the request [lists
a group of managed objects to be operated; col. 30, line 65 - col. 31, line 3 of
Kiriha] . . . ." (Id. at 10.) More specifically, the reference supports the
finding by explaining that an "agent access portion 3006 receives a request
for operating a plurality of managed objects from the behavior execution
Appeal 2009-009780
Application 10/445,157

5
portion 605 or the protocol processing portion 402 as a lump (step 3103)."
(Kiriha, Col. 30, ll. 57-60.)
Because the lump request and the request received by the agent access
portion are for operating a plurality of managed objects, we find that Kiriha
would have suggested that one or both requests specify the group of
managed objects to be operated so that the reference's system knows which
objects to operate. Because managed objects are abstractions of physical
resources, we also find that the lump request specifying the objects to be
operated indicates the resources abstracted by the objects and selected to
receive the request.
We further find that Kiriha's "management operation execution
control portion 3003 analyzes the request of a lump operation of the plurality
of the received managed objects, lists a group of managed objects to be
operated and requests an operation execution of the respective managed
objects (step 3105)." (Col. 30, l. 66 – col. 31, l. 3.) The Appellants argue
that "[t]he management control portion 3003 would not have to prepare the
list of managed objects if the group of managed objects was already
specified by the request" (App. Br. 6) or "if the request indicated the
resources selected to receive the request." (Id. at 8.)
We disagree. When the management manager provides a lump
request specifying a group of managed objects to be operated, we find that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the reference's network
management system to parse the request and extract the specific objects
therefrom so that the system would know which objects to operate.
Furthermore, we find that such a one would have expected the system to put
the extracted objects into a format, i.e., a list, so that the system could
Appeal 2009-009780
Application 10/445,157

6
process these. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
finding that Kiriha would have suggested that a manager's request specifies a
group of managed objects, as required by representative claim 1, or that a
manager's request indicates resources selected to receive the request, as
required by representative claim 28.

CLAIM 23
"It is not the function of [the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant,
looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art." In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991). "Similarly, it is not the
function of this Board to examine claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for distinctions over the prior art." Ex Parte Shen,
No. 2008-0418, 2008 WL 4105791 at * 9 (BPAI Sep. 4, 2008).
Here, we recall the aforementioned finding that Kiriha's managed
objects are abstractions of physical resources. With this in mind, the
Examiner makes the following additional findings.
Kiriha discloses the management manager requesting to acquire
management information (management information acquisition
request, step 804; col. 15, lines 17-45) from the managed
objects by using an operation object and an interface object
[col. 15, lines 17-45 and col. 16, lines 23-33]. The management
information includes information representing a relation
(relation information 3403, Fig. 41) to other managed objects.
When the manager makes a request to acquire management
information, management information including relation
information that represents a relation to other managed objects
is dynamically provided to the manager [i.e. Fig. 8, col. 15,
lines 18-45]. In addition, Kiriha discloses the management
manager requesting to acquire management information updates
Appeal 2009-009780
Application 10/445,157

7
from the managed objects by using an operation object and an
interface object [col. 15, lines 17-45 and col. 16, lines 23-33].
The management information can include definition
information of the managed objects, such as information
representing a relation to other managed objects. Therefore,
when the managed object definition is updated, the managed
objects send information representing a relation to other
managed objects to the manager [i.e. Fig. 10, col. 17, lines 40-
56].
(Ans. 18.)
For their part, the Appellants chose not to file a Reply Brief to address
the Examiner's findings about columns 15-17 and Figures 8 and 10 of the
reference. Instead, they rely on their argument in the Appeal Brief (p. 7),
which focuses on columns 30-33 and Figure 38 of the Kiriha.
"Arguing about different parts of the reference that those
aforementioned 'do[es] not … explain why the Examiner's explicit fact
finding is in error.'" Ex parte Nanja, 2011 WL 1826811, at *3 (BPAI May
9, 2011) (quoting Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at
*4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).) Therefore, we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in finding that Kiriha would have suggested providing
information to a manager regarding a managed resource including the
relationships between a managed object representing features of the resource
and other managed objects associated therewith, as required by
representative 23.

DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 23, and 28 and of claims 2-22 and
24-27, which fall therewith.
Appeal 2009-009780
Application 10/445,157

8
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tkl