Ex Parte Samayamantry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2013

10951355 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 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.
10/951,355 09/28/2004 Mallikarjuna Samayamantry 2004P12060 US 8159
28524 7590 05/15/2013
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
AGWUMEZIE, CHARLES C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2013 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 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte MALLIKARJUNA SAMAYAMANTRY and NISSIM OZERY 7
___________ 8
9
Appeal 2011-004307 10
Application 10/951,355 11
Technology Center 3600 12
___________ 13
14
15
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 16
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. 17
18
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 19
20
21
DECISION ON APPEAL 22
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed July 12, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
October 13, 2010).
Mallikarjuna Samayamantry and Nissim Ozery (Appellants) seek review 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-18, the only claims 3
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal 4
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 5
The Appellants invented a way of transferring licenses from one server 6
to another via a network connecting the servers (Specification, para. [0001]). 7
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 8
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 9
paragraphing added]. 10
1. A method 11
for transferring licenses 12
between a plurality of servers 13
via a network connecting the servers, 14
the method comprising the steps of: 15
[1] establishing a licensing component on the plurality servers 16
in an enterprise, 17
wherein each licensing component includes a count of 18
licenses 19
that corresponds to the number of users requiring a 20
license on each particular server, 21
said each particular server associated with at least one 22
particular location within said enterprise, 23
one or more enterprise users moving freely between 24
locations, 25
each enterprise user being associated with one or more 26
client units of a particular server at a current location; 27
[2] establishing communication 28
between the plurality of servers via the network; 29
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

3
[3] monitoring licensed units associated with said enterprise 1
users 2
to determine when one or more licensed units indicates 3
one or more associated users from one location 4
associated with a first license server 5
has moved to another location associated with a 6
second license server, 7
wherein an imbalance occurs each time 8
one of said one or more enterprise users moves 9
from said one location 10
and 11
none of said one or more enterprise users moves 12
from said other location; 13
[4] generating a licensing request from said second license 14
server 15
when the licensing component of said second license 16
server determines said imbalance from said movement, 17
said imbalance causing a requirement for more licenses 18
than are present in said second license server's counts; 19
[5] sending the licensing request 20
via the network 21
from said second license server; 22
[6] 23
receiving the licensing request by one or more servers on 24
the network 25
and 26
determining whether the receiving server has available 27
licenses in its count 28
to respond to said second license server's licensing 29
request; 30
and 31
[7] transferring available licenses via the network from one or 32
more receiving servers 33
in response to the licensing request of said second license 34
server, 35
transferring available licenses rebalancing license 36
distribution among said servers 37
such that each licensing component includes a new 38
count of licenses that corresponds to the current 39
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

4
number of users requiring a license on each 1
particular server. 2
3
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 4
5
Tran US 2003/0212905 Al Nov. 13, 2003
Lenard US 2004/0010471 Al Jan. 15, 2004
Mirtal US 2004/0268120 Al Dec. 30, 2004
Wu US 6,947,942 B1 Sep. 20, 2005
6
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 7
unpatentable over Lenard and Wu. 8
Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 9
over Lenard, Wu, and Tran. 10
Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 11
over Lenard, Wu, and Mirtal. 12
ISSUES 13
14
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 15
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 16
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 17
Facts Related to the Prior Art 18
Lenard 19
01. Lenard is directed to software licensing, and in particular to a 20
system for controlling the number of users that concurrently use 21
copies of a licensed application file. . (Lenard, para [0001]). 22
02. Effective management of multiple copies of application files 23
and "floating licenses" presents a major dilemma for computer site 24
administrators and software application publishers. The focus of 25
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

5
control for managing multiple copies of an application file or 1
application file software license is the physical location of the 2
application file or the program disk. The details of controlling 3
physical access and the degree of inconvenience vary, but in a 4
world of hard disks, networks, file servers and electronic email, 5
management based on controlled distribution is intrinsically 6
impractical or even impossible. Without any practical tools, site 7
administrators are forced to rely on a rather ill defined "reasonable 8
effort" at software license compliance.. (Lenard, para. [0003]). 9
03. Ghost servers are placed at each site and handle software 10
license requests from clients at those sites. Ghost servers obtain 11
software licensees from a central license server. If a ghost server 12
cannot contact the central license server, the ghost server acts as 13
the central license server. (Lenard, para. [0005]). 14
04. The multi-site software license balancing system authorizes 15
concurrent usage of an application files at multiple sites. Initially, 16
a plurality of software licenses authorizing concurrent usage of a 17
corresponding application file are divided among the multiple 18
sites. A license server located at each site accepts application file 19
requests from users at that particular site. If a software license is 20
available when the request is received, the user is granted 21
authorization to access and use the corresponding application file. 22
The multiple license servers are interconnected via a WAN or 23
other network connection. As concurrent usage is granted at each 24
site, the multiple license servers record an application file usage 25
statistic pertaining to the number of software licenses available at 26
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

6
the particular site and the number of concurrent users authorized 1
by the license server during a predetermined time period. Thus 2
allowing each site to track the number of concurrent users 3
authorized at each other site. When one of the multiple license 4
servers is overutilized, receiving more application file usage 5
requests than the license server has available, the license server 6
requests software licenses from an underutilized license server, 7
thus balancing the number of concurrent users authorized at each 8
site based on usage. To reduce the bandwidth required for 9
requesting and transferring software licenses for authorizing 10
application file usage at alternative sites, a set of software licenses 11
is requested when available. (Lenard, para. [0007]). 12
05. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, eight licensed copies of the 13
application file are available for concurrent usage by users at three 14
sites. Initially the software licenses are divided into subsets and 15
allocated among the three sites. Each license server receives 16
application file usage requests from users at the particular site, if a 17
software license is available, the user is authorized a concurrent 18
application file usage allowing the user to access and use the 19
corresponding application file. (Lenard para. [0018]). 20
06. Each license server monitors concurrent application file 21
allocation and availability. Concurrent application file usage and 22
availability data compiled by each license server are shared with 23
the other license servers. Sharing of application file usage and 24
availability data at each site provides a method for each license 25
server to have knowledge of the number of concurrent application 26
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

7
file users authorized and available at each other site. Using the 1
shared application file usage statistics, the percentage of 2
concurrent application file users for each site is calculated by 3
processing devices within each license server. Each server is 4
performing the same calculations using the same statistics, 5
therefore each license server will calculate the same percentage of 6
concurrent application file users for each site. Each license server 7
records the results for future use and makes available a 8
corresponding number of application files which will be 9
authorized as application file usage requests are received. 10
Compilation of application file usage statistics by the processing 11
device within each license server over a predetermined period of 12
time provides the statistics required for balancing application file 13
usage. Once application file usage predictions are calculated, the 14
number of application files available for use at each site are 15
recalculated according to the usage statistics, thus balancing the 16
software license distribution. (Lenard, para. [0020]). 17
07. In an alternative embodiment, license server requests one or 18
more software licenses from an alternative license server prior to 19
receiving an application file usage request from a user. In this 20
embodiment, a software license is available when a user requests 21
the application file usage, thus eliminating the time required for 22
license server to request and receive a software license from the 23
alternative license server. Requesting one available software 24
license from license server balances the number of software 25
licenses available at each of the three license servers. As 26
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

8
additional users request application file usage or discontinue 1
concurrent application file usage at each site, the allocated and 2
available software licenses are balanced by transferring software 3
licenses between the sites. For example, when the number of 4
software licenses available at one or more sites begins to fall 5
below a predetermined level the license server is over utilized. 6
The over utilized license server will request some number of 7
software licenses from an underutilized license server having 8
spare software licenses available. When one or more software 9
licenses are transferred to an over utilized license server, the 10
borrowed software licenses remain with the requesting license 11
server until another over utilized license server requests one or 12
more of the borrowed software licenses. (Lenard, para. [0026]). 13
Wu 14
08. Wu is directed to directory service management of users and 15
their computer workstations and, more particularly, to the 16
automation of the administration and inventory of physical 17
computers and their content, peripherals, and users in a large 18
organization. (Wu. 1:8-12). 19
09. Different computers need different tools depending on the area 20
the user is working in. If the user moves from one department to 21
another, it might be necessary to remove certain tools and install 22
others to adapt the computer for its new environment. Knowing 23
what is needed where, a central group can accomplish these 24
computer changes in a timely fashion so the user can be 25
productive right away. (Wu, 1:25-35). 26
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

9
10. Wu's overall objective is to manage users and their computer 1
objects in real-time, constantly-changing environments of today's 2
large organizations. Specifically, Wu creates two main 3
organizational unit directories with the first based on the 4
organization's structure and the second on the physical computer 5
location. This provides two types of searches, increasing the odds 6
of an accurate and successful tracking. (Wu, 2:3-13). 7
11. Wu provides a structural layout for each type of directory for 8
arranging user and computer objects information. Updating of the 9
data can be done in each directory. Wu synchronizes the data 10
contained in the organizational structure directory with the Human 11
Resources (HR) database to automatically keep it current with 12
people movement and their job changes. Wu synchronizes the 13
data contained in the physical location directory with network 14
subnets data to determine when computers have been moved. 15
(Wu, 2:14-23). 16
12. Wu incorporates organizational policies automatically with 17
software programming that would carry out these policies as well 18
as determine when policy infractions have occurred as updates are 19
made. This could be a check for such policy as allowing an 20
individual to have only one computer in a certain department, or 21
ensuring that each user has the latest level of a software program 22
update by a certain date. (Wu, 2:24-31). 23
13. The cost of this workstation asset to the organization is 24
enormous, often being many thousands of dollars. Keeping track 25
of this costly asset is essential for basic inventory control and is 26
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

10
usually done by a centralized inventory control group or financial 1
group. As a user changes locations or departments within the 2
organization, it is necessary to either move the workstation or 3
supply another workstation configured with the objects used in 4
that department. This becomes a complex task under old methods 5
that simply organize workstation assets by the structure of the 6
organization. Frequently when a user moves to another location in 7
the organization he physically takes the workstation with him 8
without notifying the central inventory control group. Over time, 9
the database becomes inaccurate and requires a complete and 10
costly manual inventory to correct it entailing the laborious job of 11
reconciling the user and computer objects changes and reentering 12
them into the database. (Wu, 3:4-20). 13
14. Wu’s sync program, or other associated programs it can call, 14
can be programmed to carry out organizational policy and meet 15
the needs of the organization. For example, if a user moved to a 16
new department that required a special set of programs, the sync 17
program can be programmed to send a message to the installation 18
group to contact the user and schedule the installation of those 19
programs. Likewise, it can be programmed for the removal of 20
special programs not used in that new department that are no 21
longer needed, thus saving license fees. (Wu, 4:58-67). 22
23
ANALYSIS 24
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that 25
[n]either Wu et al. nor Lenard et al. teaches or suggests, 26
"enterprise users moving freely between locations, each 27
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

11
enterprise user being associated with one or more client units of 1
a particular server at a current location; [and] monitoring 2
licensed units ... to determine when one or more licensed units 3
indicates one or more associated users from one location 4
associated with a first license server has moved to another 5
location associated with a second license server 40 " as the 6
claims recite; and moreover, any combination of Lenard et al. 7
with Wu et al. requires changing a principal of operation of 8
Lenard et al. 9
Appeal Br. 8. 10
We agree with the Examiner that 11
Wu is replete with discussion of licensed systems changing 12
location and/or departments including changing servers. For 13
example and as discussed above and further reiterated herein, 14
Wu teaches that if the user moves from one department to 15
another, it might be necessary to remove certain tools and 16
install others to adapt the computer for its new environment 17
(see col. 1, lines 25-35). Adapting a computer to a new 18
environment may include changing subnet, IP address, 19
licensing information for the new environment etc. Wu further 20
discloses that as a user changes locations or departments within 21
the organization, it is necessary to either move the workstation 22
or supply another workstation configured with the objects used 23
in that department (see col. 3, lines 5-20). One of the objects 24
that could be used in that department is the department server 25
and the associated licensed applications. Wu even gave the 26
rationale for such changes associated with the move such as 27
saving license fees by removing items no longer needed in such 28
department. It is hard to understand why Appellant think that 29
nothing is even mentioned about licensed systems changing 30
servers (i.e. that correspond to different locations) or licensed 31
users changing systems and responding to those changes. 32
Accordingly Wu does disclose or suggest "enterprise users 33
moving freely between locations, each enterprise user being 34
associated with out or more client units of a particular server at 35
a current location; monitoring licensed units ... to determine 36
when one or more licensed units indicates one or more 37
associated users from one location associated with the first 38
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

12
license server has moved to another location associated with a 1
second license server. 2
Ans. 14-15. 3
We further agree that, 4
the proposed modification or combination would not change the 5
principles of operation of Lenard et al. Lenard teaches the use 6
of multiple servers in transferring licenses from one server with 7
surplus license to another server with insufficient license 8
thereby creating a balance between the licensing servers. 9
Adding one more server as taught by Wu in the existing 10
multiple license server environment of Lenard would not 11
change the principle of operation of Lenard et al but rather 12
would enhance license distribution and ensure efficient 13
performance of the licensing servers. Furthermore the proposed 14
modification does not allow licenses to pass freely between 15
servers. Lenard allows licenses to pass from the server that has 16
surplus to a server that has insufficient licenses upon request. 17
Allowing the license of an employee that have moved to a new 18
location or position would not change the principle of operation 19
of Lenard because Lenard already does allow license servers 20
with surplus licenses to transfer such surplus licenses to a 21
server with insufficient licenses. As a matter of fact this is the 22
crux of Lenards' invention. Accordingly the combination of 23
Lenard and Wu are proper and such combination would not 24
change the principles of operation of Lenard as Applicant 25
appears to argue. 26
Ans. 13. 27
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 28
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 29
unpatentable over Lenard and Wu is proper. 30
The rejection of claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 31
over Lenard, Wu, and Tran is proper. 32
The rejection of claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 33
unpatentable over Lenard, Wu, and Mirtal is proper. 34
Appeal 2011-004307
Application 10/951,355

13
DECISION 1
The rejection of claims 1-18 is affirmed. 2
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 3
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 4
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 5
6
AFFIRMED 7
8
9
10
11
Klh 12