Lenovo Enterprise Solutions (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2021

2019006798 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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.
15/054,035 02/25/2016 Shareef Fathi Alshinnawi XRPS920150170-US-NP 5950
60501 7590 03/29/2021
LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-KLS)
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
797 Sam Bass Road #2559
ROUND ROCK, TX 78681
EXAMINER
MUNDUR, PADMAVATHI V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
kate@klspatents.com
office@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHAREEF FATHI ALSHINNAWI, GARY DAVID CUDAK,
JOHN MARK WEBER, and JOSEPH FRANCIS HERMAN
____________

Appeal 2019-006798
Application 15/054,035
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–6, 8, and 11–23, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as Lenovo Enterprise Solutions (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006798
Application 15/054,035

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The Specification states that the invention relates generally to
“configuring computer systems in a network environment,” and more
particularly to “improving the function of network environments such
as data processing clusters by determining appropriate configuration
parameters, firmware and/or software to apply to various different types
of components coupled to the network environment.” Spec. ¶ 1.2 The
Specification explains that a “system administrator” typically “determin[es]
a type of the various components and manually appl[ies] configuration
parameters.” Id. ¶ 2.
But the Specification also explains that “this user-controller process
is prone to errors and resulting inefficiency in the overall network
environment.” Spec. ¶ 3. Further, “[e]ach addition or replacement of
a component represents another opportunity for erroneous configuration
by the system administrator.” Id. ¶ 4. According to the Specification,
“[m]isconfiguring even a single component within the network environment
frequently results in data processing, storage, and/or transfer errors, creates
input/output (I/O) bottlenecks, and generally detriments the efficiency of
operation for the network environment as a whole.” Id. ¶ 5.
Hence, the invention endeavors to “provide systems, methods,
computer program products and the like which avoid the problems

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed February 25, 2016; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed November 28, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
May 28, 2019; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 3,
2019; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed September 17, 2019.
Appeal 2019-006798
Application 15/054,035

3
associated with manual network environment configuration controlled
exclusively by the user.” Spec. ¶ 6.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads
as follows:
1. A computer program product, comprising:
a computer readable storage medium having stored
thereon computer readable program instructions configured
to cause a processor of a computer system to:
determine a configuration of one or more
networked hardware components;
determine a usage level associated with one
or more of the networked hardware components;
determine a functional category of one or more
of the networked hardware components from among a
plurality of predetermined functional categories, the
determination based at least in part on the configuration
of the one or more networked hardware components and
the usage level associated with the one or more
networked hardware components; and
automatically configure of one or more of the
networked hardware components based on the
determined functional category of the one or more
networked hardware components.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Goldschmidt US 2004/0039892 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
Appeal 2019-006798
Application 15/054,035

4
Name Reference Date
Agrawal et al. (“Agrawal”) US 2006/0047793 A1 Mar. 2, 2006
Capps et al. (“Capps”) US 2008/0028236 A1 Jan. 31, 2008
Olsson et al. (“Olsson”) US 2009/0310165 A1 Dec. 17, 2009
Banerjee et al.
(“Banerjee”) US 2010/0107155 A1 Apr. 29, 2010
Crowe et al. (“Crowe”) US 8,285,141 B1 Oct. 9, 2012
Assuncao et al.
(“Assuncao”) US 2013/0080619 A1 Mar. 28, 2013
Shimogawa US 2013/0205297 A1 Aug. 8, 2013
Das et al. (“Das”) US 2014/0006672 A1 Jan. 2, 2014
Ruchita et al.
(“Ruchita”) US 2017/0235512 A1
Aug. 17, 2017
(filed Dec. 11, 2014)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Assuncao. Final Act. 2–5.
Claims 2 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Assuncao and Banerjee. Final Act. 6.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Assuncao, Banerjee, and Das. Final Act. 6–7.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Assuncao, Banerjee, and Goldschmidt. Final Act. 8.
Claims 5 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Assuncao, Banerjee, and Shimogawa. Final Act. 8–10.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Assuncao and Olsson. Final Act. 15–16.
Appeal 2019-006798
Application 15/054,035

5
Claims 8 and 13–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Assuncao and Agrawal. Final Act. 10–14.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Assuncao, Ruchita, and Crowe. Final Act. 16–17.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Assuncao, Capps, Ruchita, and Crowe. Final Act. 17–19.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Assuncao, Agrawal, Goldschmidt, Shimogawa, Capps, Ruchita, Crowe, and
Olsson. Final Act. 19–25.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the § 102 and § 103 rejections in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before
us and for the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of the
references disclose or suggest the claimed subject matter. We provide the
following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 102 Rejection of Claims 1, 11, 12, and 20
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 12, AND 20
As noted above, the § 102 rejection of independent claims 1, 12,
and 20 rests on Assuncao. See Final Act. 2–5. Appellant argues that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because Assuncao fails to disclose the
following limitation in claim 1 and similar limitations in claims 12 and 20:
determine a functional category of one or more of the
networked hardware components from among a plurality of
predetermined functional categories, the determination based at
least in part on the configuration of the one or more networked
Appeal 2019-006798
Application 15/054,035

6
hardware components and the usage level associated with
the one or more networked hardware components.
See Appeal Br. 8–10, 13–14, 18–19; Reply Br. 2–3, 5–6, 8–9.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that Assuncao’s description of
“configurable computing resources” does not “disclose ‘determining a
configuration,’ nor how to determine the configuration.” Appeal Br. 9,
14, 18 (emphases by Appellant); see also Reply Br. 3, 6, 8–9. Appellant
also asserts that Assuncao’s “general teaching” about configuring to
optimize usage of “various components does not teach that the functional
category of a given component is determined based on said usage.” Appeal
Br. 10, 14, 19 (emphases by Appellant); see also Reply Br. 3, 6, 8–9. In
addition, Appellant contends that the claimed “functional category”
determination is “a separate determination from the configuration of one or
more networked hardware components, as claimed.” Reply Br. 3, 6, 9.
The Examiner cites Assuncao’s abstract and paragraphs 12, 24, 30,
57, and 58 as disclosing the disputed limitations in claims 1, 12, and 20. See
Final Act. 3–5 (citing Assuncao ¶¶ 12, 24, 58); Ans. 5–6 (citing Assuncao
¶¶ 12, 30, 57–58, code (57)). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Assuncao
discloses “configurable computing resources,” such as “networks, network
bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual
machines, and services,” that correspond to the claimed “functional
category.” Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 5–6. The Examiner interprets the disputed
limitations “as determining which functional category, computing/storage/
network/management, needs (re)configuration based on usage and (past)
configuration.” Final Act. 4–5; see also Ans. 5–6.
Appeal 2019-006798
Application 15/054,035

7
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Assuncao
disclose the disputed limitations in claims 1, 12, and 20. See Appeal Br.
8–10, 13–14, 18–19; Reply Br. 2–3, 5–6, 8–9. In the cited portions,
Assuncao discloses “an optimization agent” for “monitoring resource usage
and selectively suggesting changes to resource configuration for the client
device” to “reduce over-allocated and/or underused/unused resources.”
Assuncao ¶¶ 12, 58, code (57). The Examiner has not adequately explained
how assessing “over-allocated and/or underused/unused resources” and then
determining what resources to reconfigure corresponds to determining
“a functional category of one or more of the networked hardware
components” based on (1) “the configuration of the one or more networked
hardware components” and (2) “the usage level associated with the one
or more networked hardware components” according to the disputed
limitations in claims 1, 12, and 20. See Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 5–6.
Determining what resources to reconfigure does not correspond
to determining “a functional category of one or more of the networked
hardware components.” See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 59–62. For example, the
Specification explains that “[t]he determined functional category of the
various components may be selected from a group including compute
components; management components; storage components; and networking
components.” Id. ¶ 62. The Specification also explains that (1) “compute
components” include “data processing nodes or clusters, workstations, etc.”;
(2) “management components” include “filesystem servers, web servers,
etc.”; (3) “storage components” include “HDD-based storage, SSD-based
storage, tape-based storage, memory-based storage, etc.”; and
Appeal 2019-006798
Application 15/054,035

8
(4) “networking components” include “switches, routers, bridges, ports, etc.”
Id. ¶ 42.
Because the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited
portions of Assuncao disclose the disputed limitations in claims 1, 12,
and 20, we do not sustain the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 12, and 20.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11
Claim 11 depends directly from claim 1. For the reasons discussed
for claim 1, we do not sustain the § 102 rejection of claim 11.
The § 103 Rejections of Claims 2–6, 8, 13–19, and 21–23
Claims 2–6, 8, and 23 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1;
claims 13–19 and 22 depend directly or indirectly from claim 12; and
claim 21 depends directly from claim 20. On this record, the Examiner
has not shown how the additionally cited references—Banerjee, Das,
Goldschmidt, Shimogawa, Agrawal, Olsson, Ruchita, Crowe, and Capps—
overcome the deficiency in Assuncao discussed above for claims 1, 12,
and 20. Hence, for the reasons discussed for claims 1, 12, and 20, we
do not sustain the § 103 rejections of claims 2–6, 8, 13–19, and 21–23.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8, and
11–23.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 11,
12, 20 102 Assuncao
1, 11,
12, 20
2, 19 103 Assuncao, Banerjee 2, 19
Appeal 2019-006798
Application 15/054,035

9
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
3 103 Assuncao, Banerjee, Das 3
4 103 Assuncao, Banerjee, Goldschmidt 4
5, 18 103 Assuncao, Banerjee, Shimogawa 5, 18
6 103 Assuncao, Olsson 6
8, 13–17 103 Assuncao, Agrawal 8, 13–17
21 103 Assuncao, Ruchita, Crowe 21
22 103 Assuncao, Capps, Ruchita, Crowe 22
23 103
Assuncao, Agrawal,
Goldschmidt,
Shimogawa, Capps,
Ruchita, Crowe,
Olsson
23
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8,
11–23
REVERSED