Red Hat, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 2, 20212020004241 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation