Ex Parte Tubman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201612289602 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/289,602 10/30/2008 Olga Tubman 56436 7590 05/31/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82243427 5421 EXAMINER FAN, HUA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 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 mkraft@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 OLGA TUBMAN and BORIS KORENFELD Appeal2014-007091 Application 12/289,602 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., KEVIN C. TROCK, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-007091 Application 12/289,602 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to a system that provides for federated data search functions related to configuration of network objects. Abstract. The system includes external data stores holding data related to the network objects, a configuration management database (CMDB), and a CMDB server coupled to the CMDB and the data stores. Id. The CMDB server includes a federation engine that identifies network objects and a mapping engine that queries external data stores for reconciliation data and creates relationships between the network objects and federated data. Id. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A system for federating data search functions related to configuration of network objects, comprising: one or more external data store adapters for accessing one or more external data stores comprising data related to the network objects; a configuration management database (CMDB) adapter for accessing a Cl\1DB; and a CMDB server coupled to the CMDB and the one or more external data stores, wherein the CMDB server, comprises: a federation engine for identifying the network objects, and a mapping engine, coupled to the federation engine, for querying the one or more external data stores, creating relationships between the network objects and federated data stored on the one or more external data stores and the CMDB, and sending a correlation of the relationships between network objects and federated data stored on the one or more external data stores and the CMDB to a user as a portion of a result of a query from the user, wherein the relationships include: a reconciliation of a difference in an identification of the network objects by the CMDB and an identification 2 Appeal2014-007091 Application 12/289,602 of the network objects by the one or more external data stores, and the correlation that links the identification of the network objects by the CMDB and the identification of the network objects by the one or more extemall data stores based on the reconciliation. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sanghvi (US 2009/0112939 Al, Apr. 30, 2009). 2. Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sanghvi and Mayfield (US 2006/0136585 Al, June 22, 2006). 3. Claims 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sanghvi and Assa (US 2004/0059812 Al, Mar. 25, 2004). We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. I. Claims 1 and 8 In their Appeal Brief, Appellants provide a summary of Sanghvi' s teachings, see App. Br. 7, and then contend with respect to claim 1: In Sanghvi, the results of a query is data stored in a target that is sent to the user from a target, where the data stored in the target is gathered and joined together independently of the location of 3 Appeal2014-007091 Application 12/289,602 each piece of data stored in the target, while independent claim 1 recites "sending a correlation of the relationship between network objects and federated data stored on the one or more external data stores and the CMDB to a user as a portion of a result of a query from the user." App. Br. 8. Similarly, with respect to claim 8, Appellants summarize portions of Sanghvi's disclosure along with Assa's teachings and contend: the Sanghvi and Assa references do not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, "network objects_are stored on a configuration management database (CMDB) and on one or more external data stores" and "returning the results of the sub- queries to the client, wherein the results include a correlation that links an identification of the network objects by the CMDB and an identification of the network objects by the one or more external data stores based on reconciling the differently identified network objects", as recited in independent claim 8. App. Br. 9-10. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments because they are conclusory. Appellants merely summarize selected portions of Sanghvi, then summarily contend "that Sanghvi does not teach each and every element and limitation of independent claims [sic] 1." App. Br. 7-8. Appellants offer no persuasive explanation or reasoning as to how or why the summarized portions of Sanghvi fail to disclose the disputed limitations of either claim 1 or claim 8. 2 See 37 CPR§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments 2 In their Reply Brief, Appellants argue, for the first time, that "[t]he output, in response to the input from the user, is not sent back to the user and the output of the synchronization does not include the link document or the resolution policies that were part of the synchronization process." Reply Br. 6, 8. Not only were these argument not made in the Appeal Brief, but the Appeal Brief actually contradicts these arguments. See App. Br. 7 ("The results of the query are sent to the user as the joined data that is stored in the target."). Thus, Appellants have waived these arguments. See 37 CPR § 41.41(b)(2) (2012) ("Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not 4 Appeal2014-007091 Application 12/289,602 shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.) (emphasis added); see also In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.") Moreover, the Examiner finds that Sanghvi discloses a mapping engine that correlates relationships between objects and federated data stored in one or more external data stores. Final Act. 5-7, 11-12. (citing Sanghvi i-fi-120, 27, 41, 45, 65, and 66). The Examiner also finds that Sanghvi discloses sending the output of the synchronization to the user. Ans. 13 (''Synchronizing the Configuration Management Database (CMDB) and Data Warehouse (DW) with the external store enables a user to view the relevant portion of each synchronize active link document query result.") Appellants' conclusory arguments do not sufficiently rebut these Examiner's findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 8. For the same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-7 and 9-11, for which Appellants' offer no additional arguments for separate patentability (see App. Br. 9). DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 is affirmed. raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.") 5 Appeal2014-007091 Application 12/289,602 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation