Ex Parte Adams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2012

11317882 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte FRANK PAUL ADAMS JR., SANJIV PURUSHOTTAM DAMLE, RICHARD BRIAN DRESCHER, JOSHUA JEROME MORRIS, MICHAEL ROBERT SMITH, STEPHEN MICHAEL SMITH, JONATHAN LYLE SPIEKER, and CHRISTOPHER LAWSON WHITE ________________ Appeal 2010-004773 Application 11/317,882 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004773 Application 11/317,882 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 – 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We affirm-in-part. Invention The invention relates to an approach for supporting automated fault isolation and recovery. When an alarm is received, a new trouble ticket is generated. The alarm is correlated with an existing trouble ticket and the new trouble ticket is associated with the existing trouble ticket. See Abstract. Exemplary Claims (Emphases Added) 1. A method for providing automated fault isolation, the method comprising: receiving an alarm indicative of a fault within a customer network; creating an event within a workflow in response to the alarm, wherein a new trouble ticket is generated as part of the workflow; communicating with a trouble management system to correlate the alarm with an existing trouble ticket; and associating the new trouble ticket with the existing trouble ticket. 6. A system for providing automated fault isolation, the system comprising: an automation engine configured to receive an alarm indicative of a fault within a customer network; and a workflow engine configured to create an event within a workflow in response to the alarm, wherein a new trouble ticket is generated as part of the workflow, the workflow engine being further configured to communicate with a trouble management system to correlate the alarm with an existing trouble ticket, and to associate the new trouble ticket with the existing trouble ticket. Appeal 2010-004773 Application 11/317,882 3 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 6 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 3 – 4. The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cerami (US 2002/0078017 A1; June 20, 2002) and Kromer (US 7,120,633 B1; Oct. 10, 2006; filed July 30, 2003). Ans. 4 – 5. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that claim 6 is directed to non- statutory subject matter? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Cerami and Kromer teaches or suggests “communicating with a trouble management system to correlate the alarm with an existing trouble ticket; and associating the new trouble ticket with the existing trouble ticket,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claims 6 – 10 (§ 101) Claim 6 is directed to a system for providing automated isolation, the system comprising a workflow engine and an automation engine. The Examiner finds that these elements could be directed to unpatentable abstract software per se. See Ans. 3 – 4; also see Ans. 6 (citing Spec. ¶ [0132]). Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that software per se is unpatentable. See App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2. However, we agree with the Examiner that an embodiment that is software per se falls outside of the scope of §101. The Supreme Court has explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an Appeal 2010-004773 Application 11/317,882 4 abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). A claim that recites no more than software, logic or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This reasoning is applicable here. Appellants further contend that the recitation of an “automation engine” must be implemented by a physical structure in order for the automation engine to perform the claimed functions. See App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2 – 3. However, claim 6 is not directed to a physical system with an automation engine performing the claimed functions, but to any system, physical or abstract, comprising the claimed automation engine (and the claimed workflow engine). Moreover, the Specification also discloses that an automation engine can be a process (as opposed to a machine) and that an automation “script” (a type of software) can be applied in reacting to an alarm, see Spec. ¶ [0025]. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that an “automation engine” is software per se and is abstract. See Ans. 6 – 7. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 6 is directed to non- statutory subject matter. See Ans. 3 – 4 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 6. We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of dependent claims 7 – 10, which are not argued separately with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. See App. Br. 5 – 8; Reply Br. 2 – 3. Appeal 2010-004773 Application 11/317,882 5 Claims 1 – 20 (§ 103(a)) Claim 1 recites the steps of “communicating with a trouble management system to correlate the alarm with an existing trouble ticket; and associating the new trouble ticket with the existing trouble ticket.” The Examiner finds that both Cerami, which is directed to a fault management system in a very high bit rate digital subscriber line (VDSL) network, teach or suggest these recitations. 1 See Ans. 4 (citing, e.g., Cerami ¶¶ [0121] and [0122]). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Cerami teaches correlating customers with a new repair ticket, rather than correlating an alarm with an existing repair ticket and then associating a new repair ticket (generated as part of a workflow in response to the alarm) with the existing repair ticket. See App. Br. 9 – 10 (citing Cerami ¶¶ [0121] and [0122]); see also Reply Br. 5. The Examiner disagrees, finding that for each customer in Cerami, a new repair ticket is generated, and thus the association of customers with a repair ticket further entails associating a new ticket with an existing repair ticket. See Ans. 8. The Examiner finds Cerami teaches or suggests that trouble tickets are generated from faults that are not automatically resolvable, see Ans. 7 (citing Cerami ¶ [0077]), and that failures related to a root failure are filtered or suppressed by a fault management system, see Ans. 8 (citing Cerami ¶ [0071]). However, we agree with Appellants that these teachings merely relate to the suppression of faults and the automatic creation of repair tickets. 1 The Examiner’s statement that “Cerami does not teach communicating . . . and associating,” see Ans. 4, is inconsistent with the Examiner’s findings in response to the Appeal Brief and appears to merely be a typo, see Ans. 7 – 9. Appeal 2010-004773 Application 11/317,882 6 See Reply Br. 3 – 4. The Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence showing that these teachings and suggestions relate to correlating an alarm with an existing repair ticket and associating a new repair ticket with the existing repair ticket. The Examiner further finds that Kromer, which is directed to a method and system for automated handling of alarms from a fault management system for a telecommunications network, also teaches or suggests correlating an alarm with an existing trouble ticket and associating the new trouble ticket with an existing trouble ticket. See Ans. 4 (citing Kromer col. 4, ll. 43 – 58). However, we agree with Appellants that Kromer does not cure the deficiencies of Cerami. See App. Br. 10 – 11; Reply Br. 6 – 7. While Kromer teaches or suggests correlating an alarm with maintenance event information, Kromer suppresses actions—such as generating a trouble ticket—with respect to the alarm when a correlation is made. See Kromer col. 4, ll. 43 – 58; see also Kromer col. 7, ll. 15 – 19, 32, and 33. Kromer does not teach or suggest correlating the alarm with an existing trouble ticket and associating the new trouble ticket with the existing trouble ticket. Nor do we find the combination teaches or suggests these disputed limitations. Therefore, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Cerami and Kromer teaches or suggests “communicating with a trouble management system to correlate the alarm with an existing trouble ticket; and associating the new trouble ticket with the existing trouble ticket,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2010-004773 Application 11/317,882 7 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, commensurately recited independent claims 6, 11, and 16, and dependent claims 2 – 5, 7 – 10, 12 – 15, and 17 – 20. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cerami and Kromer is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ELD