Ex Parte Woerz et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2016

12305820 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/305,820 05/11/2010 Philipp Woerz
26646 7590 03/01/2016
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
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.
1019115825 7940
EXAMINER
TRUONG, LOAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
uspto@kenyon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIPP WOERZ, MATHIAS BIERINGER, and
ALEXANDER SCHAEFER
Appeal2013-009664
Application 12/305,820
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS,
and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of Claims 17-19, 21-25, and 28-30. Claims 1-16 are canceled
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed January 8, 2013)
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief (filed July 31, 2013) ("Reply Br.");
the Examiner's Answer (mailed June 6, 2013) ("Ans."); and the Final Office
Action (mailed August 9, 2012) ("Final Act").
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Robert Bosch GmbH.
App. Br. 2.
3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal2013-009664
Application 12/305,820
and claims 20, 26, and 27 are allowed. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to an error management system having a plurality of
componentscontaining a first status value as a function of an error condition
of a first component and a second status value as a function of an error
condition of the second component and as a function of the first status value.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 17, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations
italicized and some formatting added:
17. A method for error management in a system having a
plurality of components, error conditions of the components
being able to be indicated by component status values,
compnsmg:
determining a first component status value of a first
component as a junction of an error condition of the first
component;
transmitting the first component status value to a second
component; and
determining a second component status value of the
second component as a function of an error condition of the
second component and as a function of the first component
status value transmitted to the second component.
2
Appeal2013-009664
Application 12/305,820
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Poeppel
Rose et al. ("Rose")
Adi et al. ("Adi")
us 5,122,816
US 6,882,918 B2
US 2005/0096966 Al
The claims stand rejected as follows:
June 16, 1992
Apr. 19, 2005
May 5, 2005
1. Claims 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Adi. Ans. 5-8.
2. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Adi and Poeppel. Ans. 8-9.
3. Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Adi and Rose. Ans. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions.
CLAIMS 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 25 AND 28
Appellants argue Claims 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 28 as a group and
specifically argue Claim 17. App. Br. 3.
First, Appellants argue Adi fails to disclose "determining a first
component status value of a first component as a function of an error
condition of the first component," as recited in claim 17. Id. at 4.
Specifically, Appellants assert that an event or a constraints violation
3
Appeal2013-009664
Application 12/305,820
described in Adi are not an error condition of a business component. App.
Br. 4 (citing Adi i-fi-f 13, 52), 5 (citing Adi i152). Appellants note Adi does
not explicitly define an event or a constraints violation. App. Br. 5.
The Examiner finds Adi describes events and constraints violations as
error conditions. Ans. 10-11. Although the Examiner notes Adi does not
explicitly disclose an event is an error condition of the business component
(Id. at 10), the Examiner finds Adi discloses user-defined event types,
business component types and dependency types that describe how an event
affects a business component. Id. at 11 (citing Adi i1 52). The Examiner
further finds that Adi describes an event that reports on failure of the first
disk and another event that reports on failure of the second disk or of the
third disk. Id. (citing Adi i1 70). Appellants reply that, in view of no
definition in Adi that events are error conditions, an event affecting a
component in Adi cannot logically or technically be interpreted as an error
condition. Reply Br. 4 (citing Adi i1 52). We agree with the Examiner that
an event reporting on the failure of a component discloses an "error
condition." Ans. 11 (citing Adi i170). Accordingly, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner has erred in finding Adi discloses this claimed limitation.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner's citation of portions of
Adi for the first time in the Answer constitute a new ground of rejection of
claim 17. Reply Br. 5 (citing Ans. 11 (citing Adi i-fi-169-70)). Even though
the Examiner states that the Final Office Action did not cite portions of Adi
relied upon in the Answer (Ans. 11 (citing Adi i-fi-169-70)), nevertheless the
Examiner does rely upon one of these portions in the rejection of Claim 17
in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 5 (citing Adi i1 70). The Examiner
further cites both of these portions in the response to arguments in the Final
4
Appeal2013-009664
Application 12/305,820
Office Action to support that an event discloses an error condition. Final
Act. 3 (citing Adi i-fi-169-70). Thus, the Examiner provides Appellants the
requisite notice of the anticipatory rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 132 in the
Final Office Action. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
("[A ]ll that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden of
production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference
or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner
as to meet the notice requirement of§ 132."). Accordingly, Appellants do
not persuade us that the Examiner has issued a new ground of rejection of
claim 1 7 in the Answer. 4
Second, Appellants argue Adi does not disclose an "error condition of
the second component," as recited in claim 17. Specifically, Appellants
contend Adi does not disclose a separate error condition of the redundant
array of independent disks (raid) 72 itself. App. Br. 5 (citing Adi i-fi-169-70);
Reply Br. 3 (citing i1 70). Similarly, Appellants argue there is no separate
error condition of server 71 itself. App. Br. 5---6 (citing Adi i-fi-169-70).
Appellants conclude that the descriptions of the function/fail statuses of raid
4 An examiner may make a new ground of rejection on appeal. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.39(a)(2) (2014). The new ground should be designated as such, which
designation triggers procedural options for the appellant. Id. at § 41.39(b ),
one of which is simply maintaining the appeal. Id. at § 41.39(b )(2). The
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, not the board,
supervises examination and examiners. 35 U.S.C. 3(a)(2)(A) & 132(a). If
an examiner has procedurally erred, the remedy lies exclusively in
petitioning the Director for supervisory review. 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. The
record before us does not include a petition alleging an improper entry of a
new ground of rejection. Consequently, we are obliged to decide the appeal
on the record before us.
5
Appeal2013-009664
Application 12/305,820
72 and server 71 do not disclose "determining the second component status
value of the second component as a function of an error condition of the
second component and as a function of the first component status value
transmitted to the second component," as recited in claim 17. Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds Adi discloses an active dependency integration
model between the second component status value and the error condition of
the second component in combination with the first component status value.
Ans. 12 (citing Adi Fig. 5, i-f 70); Final Act. 3 (citing Adi Fig. 5, i-fi-169-70).
The Examiner finds the event report in Adi discloses "the first component
status value transmitted to the second component," as recited in claim 17.
Final Act. 3--4 (citing Adi Fig. 5). The Examiner further finds the rules that
describe when a change in a business component triggers an event discloses
"the error condition of the second component," as recited in claim 17. Id. at
5 (citing Adi i-f 52, Fig. 3). Thus, the Examiner finds that Adi discloses a
fault in any of the raid 72 and two of the three disks 75, 76, and 77 results in
a fault in the raid 72, otherwise the raid 72 continues to function (i.e., not
fault). Ans. 12 (citing Adi i-f 70, Fig. 5). In tum, Adi discloses a fault in any
of the server 71, the raid 72, and both database servers 73 and 7 4 results in a
fault of the server 71. Id. (citing Adi i-fi-169-70, Fig. 5). Appellants reply
that the Examiner's interpretation of Adi requires a description of an OR-
gate function using inputs of the particular component's own error condition
and the status value of a different component. Reply Br. 3 (citing Adi i-f 70).
However, we agree with the Examiner that Adi discloses a change in a
business component, such as a fault, triggers an event which affects the
business component to be at fault. Final Act. 5 (citing Adi i-f 52). Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that Adi discloses "determining a second
6
Appeal2013-009664
Application 12/305,820
component status value of the second component as a function of an error
condition of the second component and as a function of the first component
status value transmitted to the second component," as recited in claim 1 7. In
view of the foregoing discussion, we sustain the rejection of claims 17-19,
21, 22, 24, 25, and 28.
CLAIM23
Appellants contend that claim 23 is patentable in view of its
dependence from claim 17 and because Poeppel does not remedy the
deficiencies alleged for the teachings of Adi. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 5.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has
erred in rejecting claim 23.
CLAIMS 29 AND 30
Appellants contend that claims 29 and 30 are patentable in view of its
dependence from claim 28 and because Poeppel does not remedy the
deficiencies alleged for the teachings of Adi. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 5.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has
erred in rejecting claims 29 and 30.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 23, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
AFFIRMED.
7
Appeal2013-009664
Application 12/305,820
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
8