Ex Parte VosselerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 201310318210 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte FRANK VOSSELER ____________________ Appeal 2010-012257 Application 10/318,210 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-012257 Application 10/318,210 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 9-21, 23, 25-29, and 32-41. Claims 8, 22, 24, 30, and 31 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates to monitoring information technological (IT) objects in an IT network. Spec. page 2, ll. 4-7. Illustrative Claims Claims 1 and 6 further illustrate the invention. Claims 1 and 6 read as follows: 1. A method of monitoring objects within an information technological (IT) network having (a) monitored nodes, at least one of which is a high-availability cluster having a primary cluster node and a secondary cluster node, wherein a plurality of cluster packages is running on the high-availability cluster and, in response to a failover condition being detected for a cluster package at the primary cluster node, a failover to the secondary cluster node is initiated, (b) a monitoring agent system having a first monitoring agent and a second monitoring agent associated with the primary and secondary cluster nodes, respectively, and (c) a monitoring server, said method comprising: each monitoring agent, (a) monitoring the occurrence of events relating to at least one cluster package, (b) generating event-related messages, and (c) supplying the generated messages to the monitoring server; Appeal 2010-012257 Application 10/318,210 3 each monitoring agent receiving information indicating whether the at least one cluster package on the node of each such monitoring agent is currently active or inactive; depending on said information, each monitoring agent (a) activating its message generation for each cluster package that is active on the node associated with that agent while (b) de- activating its message generation for each cluster package that is currently inactive on the node associated with that agent, wherein at least one cluster package is active on the primary cluster node while at least one other cluster package is active on the secondary cluster node; and the monitoring server processing and storing said event-related messages in a database. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the agents generate messages according to monitoring rules which are defined by a user, wherein a set of available rules for monitored clusters is the same as or at least comprises the set of rules for monitored non-cluster nodes and wherein the user defines the monitoring task for a monitored cluster in the same way as for a non-cluster node. Rejections on Appeal1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 25, 32-34, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hosokawa (US 6,088,727, Jul. 11, 2000). Ans. 3-8. The Examiner rejected claims 9-21, 23, 26-29, 35-38, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hosokawa and Bruck (US 6,801,949 B1, Oct. 5, 2004). Ans. 8-16. 1 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 25, 32-34, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn. (Ans. 3). Appeal 2010-012257 Application 10/318,210 4 Issues on Appeal2 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Hosokawa describes “each monitoring agent (a) activating its message generation for each cluster package that is active on the node associated with that agent while (b) de- activating its message generation for each cluster package that is currently inactive on the node associated with that agent, wherein at least one cluster package is active on the primary cluster node while at least one other cluster package is active on the secondary cluster node,” as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Hosokawa describes “rules which are defined by a user,” as recited in claim 6? ANALYSIS Anticipation Rejection Claims 1-7, 25, 32-34, and 39 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed May 5, 2010, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Sep. 7, 2010, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Jul. 7, 2010, for the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Appeal 2010-012257 Application 10/318,210 5 Claim 1 recites “(a) activating its message generation for each cluster package that is active on the node associated with that agent while (b) de- activating its message generation for each cluster package that is currently inactive on the node associated with that agent, wherein at least one cluster package is active on the primary cluster node while at least one other cluster package is active on the secondary cluster node” (emphasis ours). Appellant contends that Hosokawa “does not recite that one package is operational and active in a computer while another package in that same computer is inactive and waiting to be failed over to by a corresponding package in another computer.” App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 1 (emphasis ours). Appellant further contends that Hosokawa “does not teach or even suggest that some packages are active on a given node while at the same time other packages are inactive on the same node.” App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 3 (emphasis ours). We disagree. According to Appellant’s Specification,3 a first cluster package 10a’ is active and a second cluster package 10b’ is inactive on primary node agent 11a’ when primary node agent 11a’ is sending a monitoring message 15a. Spec. 21-23. Alternatively, the second cluster package10b’ is active and the first cluster package10a’ is inactive on secondary node agent 11b’ when secondary node agent 11b’ is sending a monitoring message15b. Spec. 21- 23. Thus, one cluster package is inactive while another is active on the node sending a monitoring message. The Examiner finds that Figure 50 of Hosokawa describes exactly the same thing. Ans. 18-23. According to 3 Appellant cites to page 21, line 10 through page 23, line 9, for the description of the disputed limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 8. Appeal 2010-012257 Application 10/318,210 6 Hosokawa, initially package A1 and A2 are active and package B1 and B2 are inactive on cluster A when cluster A is sending messages. Hosokawa, col. 3, ll. 11-65; Ans. 23. Additionally, initially package B1 and B2 are active and package A1 and A2 are inactive on cluster B when cluster B is sending messages. Id. We agree with the Examiner. Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to show why this interpretation of Hosokawa is in error or how this interpretation is any different than that which is claimed. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 because Hosokawa “does not suggest any such rules as being user- definable.” App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 3-4. We find that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every argument with sufficient evidence. Ans. 27-32. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Hosokawa explicitly discloses change notices that are based on “instructions, rules or policies” that are pre- defined by users. Ans. 28, 31-32 (citing to Hosokawa, col 7, ll. 22-27). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 6. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 25, 32-34, and 39 because claims 2-5, 7, 25, 32-34, and 39 are not argued separately and fall together with claims 1 and 6, respectively, for the same reasons discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2010-012257 Application 10/318,210 7 Obviousness Rejection Claims 9-21, 23, 26-29, 35-38, 40, and 41 Appellant presents no separate arguments directed to the patentability of claims 9-21, 23, 26-29, 35-38, 40, and 41. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 9-21, 23, 26-29, 35-38, 40, and 41 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 6. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 25, 32-34, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 9-21, 23, 26-29, 35-38, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7, 9-21, 23, 25-29, and 32-41 as set forth above. 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 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation