Ex Parte Velayudham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2016

11289554 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111289,554 11130/2005 Madan Ganesh Velayudham
56436 7590 08/22/2016
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.
82214762 7366
EXAMINER
MENG, JAU SHYA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 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 MADAN GANESH VELA YUDHAM and
RUDY ARD MERRIAM
Appeal2015-002776
Application 11/289,554
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP,
and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002776
Application 11/289,554
l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-14, 16-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29-37. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
A. INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a system and method for pre-
processing data messages representing a change in the system or requests to
change the system in an effort to eliminate unnecessary processing steps;
wherein, a policy engine pre-processes groups of events representing a
change in the system to determine which are complimentary, destructive,
contradictory, or duplicated (Abstract; Spec.10:23-11 :5).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by at least one computer, a set of data elements collected
for a system being managed by a system management application program,
each data element comprising a message defining a change in said system
and a time stamp;
identifying, by the at least one computer, a group of data elements in
said set of data elements which correspond to contradictory messages for
said system management application program;
1 In a prior Decision (Appeal Number 2009-014664), dated September 7,
2011, we affirmed the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-19, and
23-26 over Cornelius; of claims 8, 20, and 21 over Cornelius and Elko; and
of claims 11, and 22 over Cornelius and Subramaniam.
2
Appeal2015-002776
Application 11/289,554
converting, by the at least one computer, said messages of said set of
data elements into commands for sequential processing in accordance with
said time stamps by said system management application program, wherein,
for the group of data elements containing the contradictory messages, a most
recent data element of the group is identified according to time stamps of the
messages in the group, and only the most recent data element of the group is
converted into a particular command for processing in said sequential
processing; and
making, by the at least one computer in response to the particular
command, the change defined by the most recent data element of the group,
the change including adding a device to said system or removing a device
from said system.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cornelius
Boerries
White
van Rietschote
US 6,687,700 Bl
US 2007 /0028293 Al
US 2003/0046657 Al
US 8,516,470 Bl
Feb.3,2004
Feb. 1,2007
Mar. 6, 2003
1A,ug. 20, 2013
Claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-14, 16-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cornelius and Boerries.
Claims 30, 32, and 34--37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cornelius, Boerries and White.
Claims 31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cornelius, Boerries and van Rietschote.2' 3
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 30, 32, and 34--37
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph.
3 We note the Examiner maintains the objection to claims 13, 14, 19, and 23.
However, claim objections are not before us on appeal.
3
Appeal2015-002776
Application 11/289,554
IL ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Cornelius and Boerries teaches or suggests a
step of "receiving, ... a set of data elements ... , each data element ...
defining a change in said system ... ," and "making, ... in response to the
particular command, the change defined by the most recent data element of
the group" which includes "adding a device to said system or removing a
device from said system" (claim 1, emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Boerries
1. Boerries discloses facilitating transportation of commands
(Abst.). A content router is provided for facilitating synchronization of
content nodes attachable to a network, wherein the content router uses
commands sent across the network to communicate information and the
network connects each content node with the content router (i-f 32). The
processing logic may determine if one command supersedes the others and
may discard a new command (i-f 131 ).
2. An interface circuitry couples an unabridged outgoing
command to a destination content node. In particular, a processing logic
detects the reference to a segment in an abridged outgoing command
memory, and the segment modifies the abridged outgoing command to form
the unabridged outgoing command and sends the unabridged outgoing
command to the destination content node, wherein content nodes include
user devices and/or user accounts (i-f 12).
4
Appeal2015-002776
Application 11/289,554
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Boerries "refers to either replacing an existing
command with a new command in a queue, or removing an existing
command from the queue and adding a new command as a new entry in the
queue" but "[a]dding or removing a command from a queue clearly is not
the same as adding or removing a device from a system" (App. Br. 10). In
particular, "a command clearly does not constitute a physical entity such as a
device that can be added to or removed from a system" (id.).
Appellants also assert that "Boerries provides no teaching or hint of
making, in response to a particular command, the change defined by the
most recent data element of the group .... " (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants
then argue that Cornelius describes "that within a group of messages, earlier
messages can be deleted to avoid transmitting such earlier message" which
"has nothing to do with the subject matter of claim 1" (App. Br. 12).
According to Appellants, in Cornelius, "[t]here is no conversion of a data
element into a particular command that causes a change to be made that
includes adding a device to the system or removing a device from the
system" (App. Br. 12).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and are unpersuaded of error with the Examiner's conclusion that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious over the combined
teachings.
We note Appellants' contentions are directed to what Cornelius or
Boerries does not disclose (or suggest) individually (App. Br. 10-12).
5
Appeal2015-002776
Application 11/289,554
However, the test for obviousness is what the combination of the references
teaches or would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Boerries discloses and
suggests determining whether any conflict exists between a new command
and any existing command, wherein "the 'remove the existing conflicting
command' will have the 'new command' to be performed" (Ans. 4--5, FF 1).
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Boerries for
disclosing or at least suggesting a step of making a newly (most recently)
defined change in response to a particular command, wherein the change
defined is by the most recent (i.e., new) data element of the group (id.).
Furthermore, as the Examiner points out, the Examiner also relies on
Cornelius for teaching and suggesting "a most recent data element" (Ans.
5-7). Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on
Cornelius and Boerries for disclosing and suggesting "making, ... in
response to the particular command, the change defined by the most recent
data element of the group" as recited in claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that Boerries discloses that
"the new command instructs the system to connect [to a] content node"
wherein "the content node can be a device" (Ans. 5; FF 1-2). In particular,
Boerries discloses sending commands across the network to connect to each
content node (FF 1 ), wherein a modified command is sent to a destination
content node which can include a user device (FF 2). That is, although
Appellants contend that Boerries "refers to either replacing an existing
command with a new command in a queue" (App. Br. 10), Boerries also
discloses, in response to a command, making a change which includes
6
Appeal2015-002776
Application 11/289,554
connecting to/ disconnecting from a device (destination content node) (FF 1-
2). As the Examiner explains, once the device/destination content node is
connected, it is then added to the system because "a device is not part of the
system when the device is not connected" (Ans. 5---6). Accordingly, we find
no error with the Examiner's reliance on Boerries for disclosing and
suggesting making a change which includes "adding a device to said system
or removing a device from said system" as recited in claim 1.
We also find no error with the Examiner's finding Cornelius discloses
and suggests that the system will "define a command based on [a] message"
and thus discloses and suggests "conversion of a data element into a
particular command" (Ans. 8). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
that Cornelius in combination with Boerries discloses or at least suggests the
contested limitations of claim 1.
On this record, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1, and claims 5-9, 11, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 25, 29 falling
therewith (App. Br. 9) over Cornelius and Boerries.
As for claim 2, Appellants contend that although "Boerries refers to
discarding a duplicate command," Boerries does not teach the claimed
concept (App. Br. 13). However, we find no error with the Examiner's
finding that Boerries discloses and suggests "aggregating new command[ s ]"
(Ans. 8) which are "collectively carry out commands" (Ans. 9), wherein
there are "numerous algorithm[ s] of aggregating commands" (id.). Thus, we
are not convinced of Examiner error in finding Boerries discloses and
suggests "collectively carry out commands converted from a particular
group of data elements that correspond to duplicate messages" (id.). On
this record, Appellants also have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
7
Appeal2015-002776
Application 11/289,554
claim 2, and claims 4 and 16 falling therewith (App. Br. 13) over Cornelius
and Boerries.
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 12, 23,
and 26 separate from claim 1 (App. Br. 14). Accordingly, claims 12, 23, and
26 fall with claim 1.
As for claim 30, Appellants merely contend "[t]he concept of a pool
of spare devices clearly does not exist anywhere in Boerries" (App. Br. 15)
or White (id.). However, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Boerries
discloses and suggests adding content nodes, which may include user
devices (Ans. 10; FF 2), wherein "the group of not yet connected content
nodes is interpreted as 'a pool of spare device"' (id.). We also agree with
the Examiner's reliance on White for disclosing and suggesting "connecting
after disconnected so that the disconnected device is ready for connecting
again" (Ans. 11 ). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Boerries and White at least suggests "returning a removed device back to a
pool of spare devices" as claimed (id., emphasis omitted). On this record,
Appellants also have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 30,
and claims 32, and 34--37 falling therewith (App. Br. 15) over Cornelius,
Boerries and White.
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 31 and 33
(App. Br. 16). Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claims 31 and 33
over Cornelius and Boerries, in further view of van Rietschote.
8
Appeal2015-002776
Application 11/289,554
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-14, 16-20, 22, 23,
25, 26, and 29-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9