Ex Parte Ramachandran

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11279299 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

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.
11/279,299 04/11/2006 Puthukode G. Ramachandran AUS920060006US1 7916
45993 7590 02/25/2013
IBM CORPORATION (RHF)
C/O ROBERT H. FRANTZ
P. O. BOX 23324
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73123
EXAMINER
OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte PUTHUKODE G. RAMACHANDRAN
____________

Appeal 2010-008891
Application 11/279,299
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, HUNG H. BUI, and BARBARA A.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-4, 6-12, and 35-56. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 5 and 13-34 have been
cancelled and are not on appeal.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-008891
Application 11/279,299

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a system, method, and medium for
providing configurable item configuration data. (Spec. ¶20, Abstract).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 35 and 46 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. A computer-based method comprising:
receiving by a computer a plurality of configuration reports,
said reports reflecting configuration states or configuration state
changes about a single configurable item, said configurable
item having a plurality of configurable elements, said
configuration reports being received from a plurality of
different sources, said configuration report sources including at
least one Configuration Management Database, said
configuration states and configuration state changes being of
unknown correctness regarding actual states of and actual states
changes to said single configurable item and including at least
one criteria selected from a group comprising a reported of
software program revision level, a reported software patch
level, and a reported software update level of a configurable
element;
assigning by said computer a weight value to each single
configurable element reported in said reports using one or more
computer-based weighting rules, wherein said rules comprise a
determination of a likelihood of correctness of each reported
configurable item as reported in said received configuration
reports relative to at least one criteria selected from a group
comprising a reported of software program revision level, a
reported software patch level, and a reported software update
level of a configurable element;
selecting by said computer configurable elements having
greater assigned likelihood of correctness weight values and
preferences;
Appeal 2010-008891
Application 11/279,299

3
creating a new configuration report for said single configurable
item by producing a report containing said selected
configurable elements, said configuration states, and said
criteria;
assigning a confidence factor to said configurable elements in
said new configuration data set according by comparing said
weights of respective single configurable elements between said
plurality of reports; and
updating one or more entries in said Configuration
Management Database for said selected configurable elements
according to said new configuration report, said updated entry
including one or more of said confidence factors.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 35-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Helgren et al. (U.S. 2003/0204791, Oct. 30,
2003; “Helgren”) in view of Ma et al. (U.S. 2006/0025962 A1, Feb. 2, 2006;
“Ma”). (Ans. 3-9).1

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 8 through 10 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in
error because the cited prior art is silent regarding claimed steps of
weighting, selection and creation of a new configuration report.2 These
arguments present us with the following issues:

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
Mar. 18, 2010.
2 Throughout this opinion were refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed
Dec. 30, 2009.
Appeal 2010-008891
Application 11/279,299

4
1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the Ma or Helgren teach the
weighting step as required in claim 1?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Ma teaches the selection step
as required in claim 1?
3) Did the Examiner err in finding that Helgren teaches the creation
of a new configuration report as required in claim 1?
Appellant argues on pages 10 through 11 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in
error because it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to combine Helgren and Ma as their objectives are very different. These
arguments present us with the following issue:
4) Did the Examiner err in finding that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would combine the teachings of Helgren and Ma?
Appellant argues on page 11 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error because neither
Helgren nor Ma discloses a unit-level confidence factor as required by claim
2. These arguments present us with the following issue:
5) Did the Examiner err in finding that Ma teaches “generating a
configurable item unit-level confidence factor,” as recited in claim
2?
Appellant argues on page 12 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error because Ma fails to
disclose using history logs to corroborate a reported configuration item’s
details. These arguments present us with the following issue:
Appeal 2010-008891
Application 11/279,299

5
6) Did the Examiner err in finding that Ma teaches “parsing history
logs . . . to yield information corroborating one or more details of
one or more reports,” as recited in claim 9?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusion. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claims 1, 2, and 9 for emphasis as follows.

The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
1) First Issue
Appellant contends that Ma does not disclose the claimed weighting
step because the weights of Ma “relate to the likelihood of a parameter being
the cause for a malfunction.” (App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 33 (Ma is a
troubleshooting system).) However, Ma’s disclosure of troubleshooting
undesired behavior is in addition to, and consistent with, Ma’s disclosure of
the weighting step of claim 1. Claim 1 requires a “likelihood of
correctness.” Ma explains that the correctness of configuration parameters is
directly related to the behavior of the system, “[i]f certain configuration
parameters are incorrect, then the applications may exhibit an undesired
behavior.” (Ma ¶ 3.) Thus, since Ma discloses, for example, weighting or

3 Throughout this opinion were refer to Appellant’s Reply Brief of May 18,
2010.
Appeal 2010-008891
Application 11/279,299

6
ranking to determine whether a configuration parameter has “a high
likelihood of causing additional problems[]” (Ma ¶ 15), as noted by the
Examiner, Ma satisfies “a determination of a likelihood of correctness” as is
recited in claim 1. (See, e.g., Ans. 5 (citing Ma ¶15-17).) Accordingly, we
are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the Examiner
that this limitation is met by Ma (Ans. 5, 11).
Appellant additionally contends that the configuration parameter of
Ma is not the same as the “configurable element” recited in claim 1 because
a configuration parameter is a setting that changes the use of a configurable
element, but is not itself a configurable element. (App. Br. 10.) However,
in Appellant’s Specification, Appellant uses the term “configurable
elements” more broadly to encompass “the collection of things which can be
configured in a CI, such as options, features, components, etc. . . . .” (Spec.
¶29.) Because the USPTO gives claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation, in light of the language of claim 1 and Appellant’s
Specification, and consistent with the Examiner’s position, we decline to
limit “configurable element” as argued by Appellant. Thus, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the Examiner that Ma
discloses the “configurable element” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5, 11).
With respect to the remainder of the weighting step of claim 1, the
Examiner properly identified the relevant teachings in the cited prior art.
(Ans. 5, 11.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
and agree with the Examiner that this limitation is met by Ma and Helgren.
2) Second Issue
Appellant contends that the Examiner erroneously read the term
“probable” into the cited references and that Ma’s disclosure of ranking does
Appeal 2010-008891
Application 11/279,299

7
not teach the selection step of claim 1. (Reply Br. 5.) We agree with the
Examiner that Ma’s disclosure of ranking as understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art teaches the selection step of claim 1 (Ans. 5, 11).
Furthermore, as additional evidence supporting that the selection step is met,
Ma’s ranking technology relates to “identifying a configuration parameter
whose value is causing an undesired behavior.” (Ma ¶1.) Accordingly, we
are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the Examiner
that this limitation is met by Ma.
3) Third Issue
In an attempt to distinguish over Helgren, Appellant interjects a
requirement that only selected elements are reported arguing, for example,
that the cited prior art does not “create a new configuration report containing
only those selected elements.” (App. Br. 10 (emphasis added).) Claim 1
does not recite “only” as argued by Appellant, but instead recites, “creating a
new configuration report for said single configurable item by producing a
report containing said selected configurable elements, said configuration
states, and said criteria.” Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with
the limitations of claim 1. The Examiner properly identified the relevant
teachings in the cited prior art disclosing creating a configuration report as
recited in claim 1. (See e.g., Ans. 11.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded
by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the Examiner that this limitation is
met by Helgren.
4) Fourth Issue
Appellant contends that because Helgren and Ma have “very
different” objectives, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine Helgren and Ma. (App. Br. 10.) As noted by the
Appeal 2010-008891
Application 11/279,299

8
Examiner, both Helgren and Ma are directed to evaluating or ranking
configuration information. (Ans. 12.) As additional supporting evidence,
both Helgren and Ma teach that the evaluation can be used to identify
problems (Helgren ¶2, 22, Abstract; Ma ¶1). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Helgren and Ma are directed to the same field of endeavor.
(Ans. 12.) Here the Examiner has provided adequate rationale for
combining Helgren and Ma (Ans. 6, 12). Accordingly, we are not persuaded
by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Helgren and Ma.
As explained supra with respect to highlighted findings and
arguments regarding issues 1 through 4 presented for claim 1, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection. Additionally, with respect
to the rejection of claims 4, 6-8, 10-12, 35, 38-41, 43-46, 49-52, and 54-56,
Appellant allows those claims to fall with claim 1 by relying on the same
reasons presented for the patentability of claim 1. (App. Br. 11.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6-8, 10-12,
35, 38-41, 43-46, 49-52, and 54-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
5) Fifth Issue
Appellant argues that because neither Helgren nor Ma discloses a
“confidence factor,” as recited in claim 1, then neither Helgren nor Ma
discloses a “unit-level confidence factor,” as recited in claim 2. (App. Br.
11.) As was discussed supra with respect to the weighting step of claim 1,
the Examiner properly identified the relevant teachings in the cited prior art
Appeal 2010-008891
Application 11/279,299

9
for the weighting step. (Ans. 5, 11.) Appellant does not present additional
arguments with sufficient specificity to persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection. Additionally, with respect to the rejection of claims 3,
36, 37, 47, and 48, Appellant allows those claims to fall with claim 2 by
relying on the same reasons presented for the patentability of claim 2. (App.
Br. 11.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 36,
37, 47, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
6) Sixth Issue
Appellant contends that the Examiner did not clearly specify what the
Examiner is holding to be the teaching of using “history logs” to
“corroborate” a reported item, as required in claim 9. (App. Br. 12.)
However, as Appellant notes, the Examiner pointed to excerpts of the prior
art that disclose the limitations of claim 9. (Ans. 8 (citing Ma ¶¶15-17).)
In those excerpts cited by the Examiner, Ma discloses a “problem
report” with the configuration parameters of the user’s computer at the time
of the undesired behavior, referred to later as “candidate configuration
parameters.” (Ma ¶15.) Ma teaches ranking these candidate configuration
parameters using past or historical problem configuration data, “[s]ymptom
ranking is based on the assumption that past problems with similar
symptoms for related configuration parameters indicate that a candidate
configuration parameter is likely causing the current undesired behavior.”
(Ma ¶15.) One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the result of
the ranking yields information corroborating details in the problem report,
Appeal 2010-008891
Application 11/279,299

10
“[i]n this way the troubleshooting system can identify a configuration
parameter that may be the cause of an application exhibiting undesired
behavior . . . .” (Ma ¶15.)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and, therefore, we sustain that
rejection. Additionally, with respect to the rejection of claims 42 and 53,
Appellant allows those claims to fall with claim 9 by relying on the same
reasons presented for the patentability of claim 9. (App. Br. 12.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 42 and 53 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1, 2 and 9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1,
2 and 9 and of claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 35-56, falling therewith.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims1-4, 6-12, and 35-56.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc