Red Hat, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020004241 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
15/277,209 09/27/2016 John J. Mazzitelli 1145-028/20161198US 5833
137131 7590 09/02/2021
Red Hat, Inc and Withrow & Terranova, PLLC
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
WOLDEMARIAM, AYELE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN J. MAZZITELLI, HEIKO W. RUPP, and
JAY SHAUGHNESSY
Appeal 2020-004241
Application 15/277,209
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–20 and 22 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1
See Final Act. 1–2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Red Hat, Inc. See
Appeal Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Sept. 27, 2016;
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Dec. 10, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”), filed May 19, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office
Appeal 2020-004241
Application 15/277,209

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, relates “generally
to distributed computing environments that involve multiple components,
and in particular to automatically identifying a component cluster of
interrelated components.” Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically, Appellant’s claims
are directed to methods for identifying components in a component cluster
within a distributed computing environment. A computing device accesses
configuration information for the components that includes inter-component
communication information such as an Internet Protocol (IP) address, a port
number, or a host name. The method identifies matching inter-component
communication information for the components and determines pairs of
components that communicate with one another. Additionally, the method
determines, for each pair of components, a relationship between the
components, and generates a data structure that includes determined
information. See Spec. ¶¶ 3–6; Abstract. Claim 1 (directed to a method),
claim 15 (directed to a device), and 19 (directed to a computer program
product) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for identifying a component cluster
among a plurality of components in a distributed computing
environment, comprising:
accessing, by a computing device comprising a processor
device, configuration information that corresponds to the
plurality of components, the configuration information
comprising inter-component communication information,
wherein the inter-component communication information
comprises one or more of an Internet Protocol (IP) address, a

Action (“Final Act.”), mailed July 11, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
Mar. 19, 2020.
Appeal 2020-004241
Application 15/277,209

3
port number, a combination of both an IP address and a port
number, and a host name;
identifying, in the inter-component communication
information of the plurality of components, matching inter-
component communication information to determine a plurality
of pairs of components that communicate with one another;
determining, for each respective pair of components of
the plurality of pairs of components, a relationship between the
components in the respective pair of components; and
generating a data structure that identifies the component
cluster of the pairs of components and the relationship between
the components in each of the pairs of components.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rider US 2011/0173302 A1 July 14, 2011
Kim et al. (“Kim”) US 2013/0091292 A1 Apr. 11, 2013
Sonoda et al.
(“Sonoda”)
US 2017/0034166 A1 Feb. 2, 2017

REJECTION3
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rider, Kim, and Sonoda. See Final Act. 3–9.

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective (March 16, 2013), this
decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-004241
Application 15/277,209

4
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claims 15 and 19, and dependent claims 2–14, 16–18, 20, and 22) as being
obvious over Rider, Kim, and Sonoda. See Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 13–15. The
Examiner relies on Rider to teach identifying matching inter-component
communication information to determine pairs of components that
communicate with one another. Final Act. 4 (citing Rider ¶¶ 34, 45, 49, 50,
and 90); Ans. 13 (citing Rider ¶ 49; Fig. 9).
Appellant contends that Rider (in combination with Kim and Sonoda)
does not teach this disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5–16;
Reply Br. 2–6. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that the
Examiner-cited portions of Rider (see Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 13–15 (citing
Rider ¶¶ 49, 50)) do not teach “a computing device” (a processor)
“accessing” “configuration information” of network components that
includes “inter-component communication information” and “identifying . . .
matching inter-component communication information to determine a
plurality of pairs of components that communicate with one another”
(Appeal Br. 22 (Claim App.)(claim 1)). See Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 2–
3. Appellant contends that Rider instead “relates to mechanisms for
configuring clusters of hosts (Rider, Abstract)” (Appeal Br. 11) and the
Examiner-cited portions of Rider describe “mapping logic” that “defines the
limits and bounds for grouping and for defining interaction of the
various components” (Appeal Br. 12). Appeal Br. 11–12; see Reply Br. 2–
3.
Appeal 2020-004241
Application 15/277,209

5
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Rider do
not teach or suggest the disputed limitation of determining component pairs
that communicate—“identifying . . . matching inter-component
communication information to determine a plurality of pairs of components
that communicate with one another.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claim App.)(claim 1);
see Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 2–3. As pointed out by Appellant, the
Examiner-cited portions of Rider (supra) do not teach determining “pairs of
components that communicate with one another.” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis
omitted); see Reply Br. 2–3. Instead, Rider describes configuring clusters of
components (hosts) using a graphical user interface and mapping logic to
present cluster components that are compatible. The selected components
are mapped. The mapping includes an interconnectivity map. See Rider ¶¶
49, 50; Fig. 9. Manually configuring a component cluster and mapping
interconnectivity of the components does not fairly teach the recited feature
of “identifying . . . matching inter-component communication information to
determine a plurality of pairs of components that communicate with one
another” in order to identify a component cluster as required by claim 1. As
pointed out by Appellant, determining that cluster components may be
interconnected does not teach determining communicating pairs of
components to identify a cluster of components. See Reply Br. 2–3.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the proposed
mapping described in Rider would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art
determining pairs of communicating components as required by claim 1, or
how Rider (in combination with Kim and Sonoda) would have taught or
suggested the disputed features of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-004241
Application 15/277,209

6
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Rider, Kim, and
Sonoda renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 15 and 19
include limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2–14, 16–18, 20, and 22
depend from and stand with claims 1, 15, and 19, respectively. Thus, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–20 and 22.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–20 and 22.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20, 22 103 Rider, Kim,
Sonoda
1–20, 22

REVERSED