INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2021

2020005848 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2021)

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.
13/767,687 02/14/2013 John A. Griffith AUS920120038US2 8540
104079 7590 12/30/2021
IBM CORPORATION - Patent Center
1701 North Street
B/256-3
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
COUGHLAN, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2021 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):
fdciplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN A GRIFFITH, ROBERT P. PETERSON,
PHILIP R. RIEDEL, and DAVID L. SCHMIDT
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687
Technology Center 2100

Before JENNIFER S. BISK, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Specification filed
February 14, 2013 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed November 26,
2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 21, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 23, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed August 9, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “discovering a grouping related computing
resources using machine learning.” Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising
discovering and identifying, by a discovery engine
executing on a processor unit, computing resources
deployed in a computing environment;
storing, by the discovery engine, in a repository a dataset
of configuration items corresponding to the discovered and
identified computing resources representing an infrastructure
of the computing environment;
analyzing, by the discovery engine, a grouped unit of at
least two of the configuration items in the dataset;
determining, by the discovery engine, a network
relationship between the configuration items of the grouped
unit based on analysis of the grouped unit;
automatically creating a rule, by the discovery engine,
based on the determined network relationship;
applying the rule, by the discovery engine, to the dataset
to automatically identify another configuration item in the
repository related to the configuration items of the grouped
unit; and
responsive to identifying another configuration item in
the repository based on the application of the rule, including
the identified configuration item in the grouped unit.
Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.).
III. REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

3
Name Reference Date
Riosa US 2002/0120734 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Huang US 2003/0071840 A1 Apr. 17, 2003
Nguyen US 2010/0074141 A1 Mar. 25, 2010
Arkin US 2010/0315975 A1 Dec. 16, 2010
Yamato US 2011/0317701 A1 Dec. 29, 2011
Oostlander US 2011/0320540 A1 Dec. 29, 2011
IV. REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Arkin and Riosa. Final Act. 2–10.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Arkin, Riosa, and Oostlander. Id. at 10–11.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Arkin, Riosa, and Yamato. Id. at 11–12.
Claims 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Arkin, Riosa, and Nguyen. Id. at 12–15.
Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Arkin, Riosa, and Huang. Id. at 15–18.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Arkin, Riosa, Oostlander, and Yamato. Id. at 18–20.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Arkin, Riosa, Oostlander, Yamato, and Huang. Id. at 21–
23.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Arkin, Riosa, Oostlander, Yamato, Huang, and Begley.
Id. at 23–25.
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

4
V. RELATED APPEAL
This appeal is related to Appeal 2020-005847, which involves
Application 13/458,281, a continuation of this application.
VI. OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the corresponding arguments and
evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
A. Claims 1 and 8
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1 and 8 as obvious over the
combination of Arkin and Riosa.3 Final Act. 2–10. Appellant focuses the
discussion on claim 1 (Appeal Br. 4–13) and we do the same. Although
Appellant appears to argue claim 8 separately, the arguments are
substantially the same as those for claim 1. Compare Appeal Br. 5–14 with
id. at 14–24.
The Examiner relies on Arkin as teaching claim 8’s recitations of
discovering and identifying computing resources deployed in a computing
environment and storing, in a repository, a dataset of configuration items
corresponding to those discovered resources. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Arkin
Abstract, ¶ 41). The Examiner elaborates “[t]he nodes in Arkin are
computing resources such as a switch, a router, a host, a printer, a terminal,
etc.” Ans. 4 (citing Arkin ¶ 32).

3 The title of this section in the Appeal Brief is “Rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) in view of Arkin, Rover, and Karnik.” Appeal Br. 4. Because the
contents of this section refer to Arkin and Riosa, we presume this title is a
typographical mistake.
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

5
The Examiner relies on Riosa as teaching the remaining limitations: a
processor unit, analyzing a grouped unit of at least two of the configuration
items from the repository, determining a network relationship between the
items of the grouped unit, creating a rule based on the determined network
relationship, applying that rule to the repository to identify another
configuration item related to those of the grouped unit, and including that
item in the grouped unit. Id. at 4–6 (citing Riosa ¶¶ 21, 23, 54, 121, 125,
and Fig. 8). The Examiner points to paragraph 32 of the Specification as
stating that configuration items include “hardware, middleware, software,
network switches, and the like.” Ans. 18 (quoting Spec ¶ 32). Further, the
Examiner explains that each event in Riosa “is associated with an event
source that identifies various system components” and that the event nodes
in Riosa’s correlation diagram (Figure 3) “correspond to the claimed
configuration items” and “represent infrastructure computing resources.”
Ans. 4–5, 7–8, 17–18 (citing Riosa ¶¶ 11, 21). In addition, the Examiner
explains that “[t]he causal chain of event represents network relationships
between the configuration items.” Id. at 5 (citing Riosa ¶¶ 23, 54).
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan at the time of the invention “to modify Arkin to incorporate
automatic rule generation and application of Riosa” to gain “the advantage
of employing the rule for discovery of additional nodes.” Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that the combination of Arkin and Riosa does not
render claim 1 obvious. Appeal Br. 4–13; Reply Br. 2–12. First, Appellant
argues that Riosa’s disclosed events are not items “representing an
infrastructure of the computing environment” as recited by claim 8. Appeal
Br. 7. In particular, Appellant “disagrees” that Figure 3 of Riosa shows
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

6
nodes representing configuration items, instead asserts that “Figure 3 of
Riosa appears to depict different type of events.” Reply Br. 2–4. According
to Appellant, Riosa, therefore, does not disclose analyzing a grouped unit of
such items and cannot determine a network relationship between such items.
Id.
Riosa discloses that each event is associated with a source (see Riosa
¶ 9) consisting of, for example “hardware device, operating system platform,
application” (id. ¶ 11). These sources qualify as configuration items, as used
by the Specification. See Spec. ¶ 32. The events shown in Riosa’s
correlation diagram, Figure 3, are also associated with a source, and,
therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the events shown in Figure 3
correspond with configuration items. Appellant’s conclusory attorney
argument to the contrary is not persuasive. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974) (attorney argument is not evidence); and Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 2145 (“Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is
an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making
a rejection.”). In particular, Appellant does not explain or provide evidence
showing that claim 8’s recitation of configuration items does not encompass
Riosa’s event sources that include hardware devices, etc.
Second, Appellant argues that Riosa’s working rule “appears to be a
rule or template that is defined in advance of event analysis/correlation” and,
therefore, does not meet the recitations of claim 8. Appeal Br. 6–7.
Appellant adds that Riosa’s working rule “is not applied to any repository”
and “does not result in the inclusion of any other item with any previous
grouped unit of items” as required by claim 8. Appeal Br. 8–10.
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

7
The Examiner explains that Riosa’s “changes in severity, status,
administrators, etc. are . . . automatically filled in by the tool to create a
working rule,” and, these changes (the event causal chain) are equivalent to
the claimed “network relationship.” Ans. 5. According to the Examiner,
Riosa’s working rule “is a combination of a rule template and determined
network relationship (i.e. changes in severity and status).” Ans. 10 (citing
Riosa ¶¶ 23, 54). The Examiner also points to Riosa’s Figure 8, which
shows verifying the event network relationship and then fixing any errors.
Id. at 11 (citing Riosa Fig. 8 (items 804, 806)); see also Riosa ¶¶ 117–118.
In addition, the Examiner explains that “[w]hen the event relationship
network (ERN) is verified, the rules are check[ed] to identif[y] errors,” “[a]t
step 806, the ERN is fixed due to unsuccessful verification,” and “[t]he ERN
is modified to include further identified item when it is fixed.” Ans. 11.
For the first time, in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues: (1) that “the
‘working rule’ of Riosa relied on by the Examiner would appear to need to
be created based on a network relationship of the ‘events’ of Riosa – but it is
not;” and (2) that Riosa’s Figure 8 refers only to the initial creation of
working rules and are not based on any derived network relationship. Reply
Br. 7–8. These arguments could have been presented in the Appeal Brief,
are not prompted by the Examiner’s Answer, and are not based on any new
argument or grounds of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. See Final Act.
5 (citing Riosa Fig. 8). As a result, Appellant has waived this untimely
argument because Appellant has not shown good cause for belatedly raising
it. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2019). Moreover, we agree with the
Examiner that Riosa’s: (1) events correspond to the infrastructure of the
computing environment; (2) working rule is created based on a network
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

8
relationship of events; and (3) Figure 8 shows identifying and fixing errors.
Third, Appellant disagrees that “it would have been obvious to modify
Arkin with the purported teaching of Riosa ‘to incorporate automatic rule
generation’ ‘for discovery of additional nodes.’” Appeal Br. 12. According
to Appellant, Arkin has no need for automatic rule generation because it
already includes a topology detector and because Riosa’s rule is used to
determine a type of event, it would have no bearing on Arkin’s topology
detector. Id. at 12–13.
The Examiner responds that Arkin “performs event processing in
response to node connectivity in paragraphs 0047-48.” Id. at 19. Thus, the
Examiner does not agree that Riosa’s automatic rule generation has no
bearing on Arkin. Id. at 19–20. In the Reply Brief, Appellant does not
address this finding of the Examiner and instead continues to assert that
“Arkin appears to be directed toward the automatic identification of nodes
connecting or disconnecting from a network” and thus, Appellant concludes
that Riosa’s teachings have no bearing on Arkin. Reply Br. 11. Because
Appellant does not point to any error in the Examiner’s finding that Arkin
performs event processing, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
concluding that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
combine Riosa’s teachings with those of Arkin to provide automatic rule
generation and correlation analysis for discovery of additional nodes.
For these reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claim 8.
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

9
B. Claims 3 and 9
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and also recites “creating the rule based
on a network pattern associated with at least one of the configuration items
of the grouped unit.” Appeal Br. 37. The Examiner relies on Riosa for this
limitation. Final Act. 6 (citing Riosa ¶ 23).
Appellant argues that Riosa’s working rule “is not based on an
infrastructure resource of a computing environment, much less a network
pattern associated at least one of the infrastructure items of an item grouping
as recited by Claim 3.” Appeal Br. 23. Appellant adds that Riosa’s
hierarchical graph “appears to be directed to a particular event’s relationship
to another event.” Id.
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Riosa’s events
correspond to the infrastructure of the computing environment and Riosa’s
working rule is created based on a network relationship of events.
Appellant’s conclusory attorney arguments to the contrary are not
persuasive.
For these reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and adds “analyzing a network pattern
associated with at least one of the configuration items of the grouped unit.”
Appeal Br. 29. The Examiner relies on Riosa for this limitation. Final Act.
19–20 (citing Riosa ¶ 23).
Similar to the argument made for claim 3, Appellant argues that
Riosa’s working rule “is not based on an infrastructure resource of a
computing environment, much less a network pattern associated at least one
of the infrastructure items of an item grouping as recited by Claim 9” and
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

10
the Riosa’s graph “does not appear to be based on a network pattern.”
Appeal Br. 31. For the same reasons as those described for claim 3, we are
not persuaded by this argument of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
9.
C. Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claims 1 and adds “creating the rule based on
text metadata of at least one of the configuration items of the grouped unit.”
Appeal Br. 37.
The Examiner relies on Oostlander as disclosing this limitation. Final
Act. 10–11 (citing Oostlander ¶ 52). Further, the Examiner explains that a
skilled artisan would have found it obvious “to modify Arkin and Riosa to
incorporate metadata with a function of a rule of Oostlander” because “the
advantage of metadata is often associated with a configuration item of a
group of configuration[] items.” Id. at 11.
Appellant argues that Oostlander “appears to ‘apply’ a rule, but not
create one” and only analyzes a single node. Appeal Br. 24. This argument
is not persuasive of error because the Examiner relies on Riosa for creating a
rule by analyzing more than one node. Final Act. 11.
For the first time, in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that
“Oostlander does not appear to disclose that any metadata is analyzed.”
Reply Br. 26. This argument is waived because it could have been presented
in the Appeal Brief, is not prompted by the Examiner’s Answer, and is not
based on any new argument or grounds of rejection in the Examiner’s
Answer. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2019).
For these reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

11

D. Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites “creating the rule based on
a data flow pattern corresponding to at least one of the configuration items
of the grouped unit.” Appeal Br. 37–38. The Examiner relies on Yamato as
disclosing this limitation. Final Act. 11–12 (citing Yamato ¶ 112). Further,
the Examiner explains that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious “to
modify Arkin and Riosa to incorporate network flow patterns within a
computer network of Yamato” because “network flow patterns often
disclose a computer network topology and thus subnets.” Id. at 12.
Appellant argues that “[t]he ‘processing rule’ referenced by Yamato
does not appear to be applied to any repository to identify another item in
the repository to group with any other grouped items” and even if
incorporated with Arkin and Riosa, “there would appear to be no application
of such ‘processing rule’ to identify another item in the repository to group
with any other grouped items.” Appeal Br. 25. Appellant adds that
Yamato’s processing rule “appear[s] to have no relevance to the
determination of a type of event” by Riosa’s working rule. Id. at 26.
The Examiner responds by explaining “Arkin and Riosa’s event
causal chain is a form of data flow” and “[t]he occurrence of an event on one
system component will cause the occurrence of another event at another
component.” Ans. 26. According to the Examiner, “[t]he combination of
Yamato’s forwarding path rules will allow the notifications in Arkin and
Riosa to be routed to the other nodes affected by the event.” Id. at 26–27.
In addressing this finding, Appellant “respectfully disagrees” and
reiterates that “[t]here would appear to be no reason to have an event routed
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

12
to another node that may have been affected by that event.” Reply Br. 27.
This conclusory attorney argument does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
E. Claims 5, 7, 10, and 11
Claim 5 depends from claim and recites “receiving an acceptance or
rejection of the identified configuration item for the grouped unit” and
“responsive to receiving the acceptance or rejection, modifying the rule
based on the acceptance or rejection.” Appeal Br. 38. The Examiner relies
on Huang as disclosing these limitations. Final Act. 15–16 (citing Huang
¶¶ 28, 59). Further, the Examiner explains that a skilled artisan would have
found it obvious “to modify Arkin and Riosa to incorporate the ability to
refine results of Huang” because it would give better results and less
computational costs. Id. at 16. The Examiner adds that in Huang, “[s]ince
the user is allowed to build and modify network models, this would
obviously allow the user to make choices to reject or accept a proposed
modification.” Ans. 28. According to the Examiner, an example of this is
Huang paragraph 249, which discloses a user can accept or reject data
entries and “[s]imilar user interface tools could be include[d] in the NDMS
GUI to allow user to modify network models.” Id.
Appellant argues that Huang does not “disclose any ‘acceptance’ or
‘rejection’ of the grouping of a new item with previously grouped items
based on the application of any rule” because they are “not added or
removed independent of developer action.” Appeal Br. 27–28. Appellant
adds that the removal or addition of a network element in Huang “should
have no bearing whatsoever” on Riosa’s working rule. Id. at 28. According
to Appellant, paragraph 249 of Huang “appears to either ‘store’ the data
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

13
that’s in the row or ‘undo’ the data in the row,” and does not modify a rule
based on this action. Id. at 30.
We are not persuaded that Appellant’s argument comports with the
language of the claim. For example, we see no language in claim 5 that
requires the acceptance or rejection to be based on the application of a rule
or independent of developer action. As for modifying a rule, Appellant does
not address the Examiner’s finding that tools similar to that disclosed in
Huang’s paragraph 249 could be used to modify network models. See Reply
Br. 29–30. Moreover, as explained above, we agree with the Examiner that
Riosa’s working rule is created based on a network relationship of events.
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites “displaying the rule to a
user,” “receiving a modification to the rule from the user,” and “applying the
modified rule to the computing environment.” Appeal Br. 38. Claim 10
depends from claim 9 and similarly recites “displaying the query to a user,”
“receiving by the discovery engine a modification to the query from the
user,” and “submitting the modified query to the repository.” Id. at 39–40.
Claim 11 depends from claim 8 and similarly recites similar limitations. Id.
at 40. The Examiner relies on Huang as disclosing these limitations. Final
Act. 17–18 (citing Huang ¶¶ 28, 29), 21–23 (citing Huang ¶¶ 28, 58, 65, 70,
102).
Similar to the argument made for claim 5, Appellant argues that
Huang does not appear to modify a rule or query based on any change to the
network model. Appeal Br. 29, 32–34. For the same reasons as those
described for claim 5, we are not persuaded by this argument of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 10, and 11.
Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

14
F. Claims 6, 12, 13, and 14–16
Claims 6 and 14–16 depend from claim 1, and claims 12 and 13
depend from claim 8. Appellant does not make any separate arguments for
these claims. See Appeal Br. 26 (claims 14–16), 28 (claim 6), 35 (claims 12
and 13).
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 6, 12, 13, and 14–16.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 8 103 Arkin, Riosa 1, 3, 8
2 103 Arkin, Riosa,
Oostlander
2
4 103 Arkin, Riosa, Yamato 4
14–16 103 Arkin, Riosa, Nguyen 14–16
5–7 103 Arkin, Riosa, Huang 5–7
9 103 Arkin, Riosa,
Oostlander, Yamato
9
10, 11 103 Arkin, Riosa,
Oostlander, Yamato,
Huang
10, 11
12, 13 103 Arkin, Riosa,
Oostlander, Yamato,
Huang, Begley
12, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–16

Appeal 2020-005848
Application 13/767,687

15
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED