Ex Parte Pinhas et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 21, 2011

10703849 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 21, 2011)

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.
10/703,849 11/06/2003 Yaacov Pinhas 2003P00596US (S20.022) 2644
52025 7590 01/21/2011
SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
POLLACK, MELVIN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte YAACOV PINHAS and GILAD MENASHE
____________________

Appeal 2009-007074
Application 10/703,8491
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Application filed November 6, 2003. The real party in interest is SAP
Portals Israel, Ltd.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007074
Application 10/703,849

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1 to 163 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We affirm.

Appellants’ invention relates to a method of more efficiently
managing servers in a cluster using a master server. In the words of
Appellants:
[The] master server is selected from a portal server
host dropdown list. … The portal server host list
displays all servers within a given cluster group.
Any server in the cluster group may be selected as
the master server. The selected server is the
master server for that particular session and its
setting field indicates this with the following:
“Master Settings.” Different servers may be
selected as the master servers for subsequent
sessions. … [T]he selected server is made the
default master server for the subsequent sessions,
where the default master server may be unselected
if the administrator so wishes.
(Spec. 7, ¶ [0040]).
The following claim illustrates the claims on appeal:

3 Appellants did not list claims 13 and 14 as being on appeal. However, we
infer from the record that all claims are on appeal since there is no explicit
indication that claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from the appeal. Appellants
present no separate arguments asserting the separate patentability of the
cited claims. Such failure to do so constitutes a waiver as to the claims not
argued.
2
Appeal 2009-007074
Application 10/703,849

Claim 1:
1. A method for managing a plurality of servers,
the method comprising:

launching a cluster manger [sic] in response
to a request from a user, the cluster manager being
operable to manage system preference settings of a
plurality of servers in a cluster group;

selecting a first server from the plurality of
servers provided in the cluster group according to
an input from the user, the selected first server
being designated to be a master server;

receiving a new system preference setting
for the first server from the user;

selecting a second server from the plurality
of server provided in the cluster group according to
an input from the user; and

synchronizing a system preference setting of
the second server to the new system preference
setting of the first server according to an input
from the user.

The Examiner relied on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Matsuda US 7,039,688 B2 May 02, 2006
(filed Nov. 12, 1998)
Hasan US 7,082,464 B2 Jul. 25, 2006
(filed Jul. 06, 2001)
Patterson US 7,093,005 B2 Aug. 15, 2006
(filed May 22, 2001)

3
Appeal 2009-007074
Application 10/703,849

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

R1: Claims 1, 2, 7 to 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Hasan in view of Matsuda.
R2: Claims 3 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
obvious over Hasan in view of Matsuda further in view of Patterson.

We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Brief. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue in this appeal involves whether Appellants have
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue specifically turns on whether Hasan and
Matsuda render obvious Appellants’ claimed method step of “synchronizing
a system preference setting of the second server to the new system
preference setting of the first server according to an input from the user”
(claim 1).

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

4
Appeal 2009-007074
Application 10/703,849

Disclosure
1. Appellants have invented a method, system, and medium for
managing a cluster of computer servers (claims 1, 15, and 16). The method
includes selecting a master server and synchronizing a system preference
setting of the second server to the new system preference setting of the
master server according to a user input. (See claim 1.)
Matsuda
2. The Matsuda reference discloses a method for managing a cluster of
networked office appliance (NOA) servers. (See col. 4, l. 36 and col. 8, ll.
41 to 46.) The method includes selecting a master server (see col. 8 at ll. 12
to 14) and synchronizing a configuration setting of the second server to the
new system configuration setting of the master server according to a user
input. (See id. at ll. 43, 46 to 49, and 54 to 59.)
Hasan
3. The Hasan reference discloses a network management system server
for managing several multifunction devices. (See col. 7, ll. 12 to 17 and 19
to 21.) The method includes synchronizing a secondary server with the
network management system server so that a system preference setting of
the secondary server matches the system preference setting of the network
management system server. (See col. 17, ll. 32 to 40.)

5
Appeal 2009-007074
Application 10/703,849

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
Examiner error. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 7 to 12, 15 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) [R1]

The Examiner has rejected the noted claims for being obvious over
Hasan and Matsuda, pages 3 to 9 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Appellants argue that Matsuda merely discloses “how a server might
be a master server insofar as it provides some type of service for a network.”
(Brief 6, top to middle). “Such master servers are booted differently,”
Appellants argue, compared with non-master servers and provide master
password lists to other servers (id.). Appellants argue that “[n]owhere does
Matsuda disclose ‘synchronizing a system preference setting of [another]
server,’” as claim 1 requires (id.).
In sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the Board may rely on one reference alone without designating it as a new
ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961).
We agree with the Examiner. We concentrate on the Matsuda
reference for the operative elements of the claim language in claim 1. (See
id.)
We find that Appellants have invented a method, system, and medium
for managing a cluster of computer servers (FF#1). The method includes
selecting a master server and synchronizing a system preference setting of
the second server to the new system preference setting of the master server
according to a user input (id.). In comparison, we find that the Matsuda
reference discloses a method for managing a cluster of networked office
6
Appeal 2009-007074
Application 10/703,849

appliance (NOA) (i.e., computer) servers (FF#2). Matsuda discloses
selecting a master server and synchronizing a configuration setting (i.e., the
claimed “system preference setting”) of the second server to the new system
configuration setting (i.e., the claimed “new system preference setting”) of
the master server according to a user input (id.).
Appellants further contend that nothing in Matsuda even discusses
preference settings as recited in the claims (Brief 7, middle). Appellants
contend that “[t]he absence of a real motivation in the prior art (and the lack
of a convincing line of reasoning) to perform the particular method as
recited in the pending claims indicates … impermissible hindsight
reconstruction.” (Id.).
References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103 qualify as
prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the
claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Two
separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and,
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether
the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
We disagree with Appellants. Both the Hasan and Matsuda references
are directed to managing groups or clusters of servers in a distributed
computing environment. (See FF#2, FF#3.) Therefore, we find that the
Hasan and Matsuda patents are analogous art compared with the claimed
invention for managing a cluster of computer servers (FF#1). Thus, in
7
Appeal 2009-007074
Application 10/703,849

contradiction to Appellants’ above-stated argument, we conclude that the
combination is not improper.
Alternatively, relying upon In re Bush, cited above, we find all of the
operative elements of the claim language in the Matsuda reference. (See
supra.)
For all of the above-stated reasons, we thus find that Appellants failed
to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection R1. Accordingly, we
affirm.
Appellants make separate arguments for dependent claims 2, 9, 10,
15, and 16 in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
For example, regarding claim 2, Appellants disagree that a
synchronization system necessarily requires “a delta compare with existing
setting values in a preference setting file,” as recited (Brief 7, bottom).
Regarding claim 9, Appellants contend that nothing in the cited references
discloses or suggests “displaying to the user, when the second server is
selected, an indication of a time and date associated with a previous setting
synchronization,” as the claim requires (Brief 8, middle). In addition,
concerning claim 10, Appellants argue that nothing in either reference
discusses how many server requests can be handled concurrently, “let alone
that a preference value associated with such an ability is synchronized using
a preference setting of a master server” (Brief 9, top). “Nor does the
specification define the meaning of ‘a maximum number of concurrent
server requests’ in any way that makes the phrase ‘inherent’ in
synchronization procedure.” (Id.) (emphasis omitted).
Regarding claim 15, Appellants argue that the claimed “CPU load
value preference settings” are not disclosed in the cited references (Brief 9,
8
Appeal 2009-007074
Application 10/703,849

middle). Lastly, similar arguments as those made regarding claim 10 are
made for claim 16 (Brief 9, bottom to 10, top).
We carefully reviewed the Brief, the Answer, the cited portions of the
references and indeed the entire references. We adopt and endorse the
Examiner’s findings with respect to each of the above-stated separately
argued claims. We refer Appellants to the “Response to Arguments” section
of the Examiner’s Answer for further details (Ans. 10, bottom to 15, top).
Accordingly, we find Appellants have not shown error in the rejection R1.

Argument with respect to the rejection
of claims 3 to 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) [R2]

The Examiner has rejected the noted claims for being obvious over
Hasan, Matsuda, and Patterson, pages 9 to 10 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Appellants made no separate arguments in accordance with
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (Brief 5, middle to 10, bottom). Accordingly,
we affirm the rejection R2.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to
12, 15, and 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections R1 and R2 of claims 1 to 12, 15,
and 16.

9
Appeal 2009-007074
Application 10/703,849

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

peb

SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
10