Ex Parte Davis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12164623 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/164,623 06/30/2008 Trevor A. Davis
56436 7590 05/03/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82257449 1633
EXAMINER
MISIASZEK, AMBER AL TSCHUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TREVOR A. DA VIS, VINCENT B. MARCELLINO,
and KEVIN C. MCINTOSH
Appeal2013-010942 1
Application 12/164,623
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal from the rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-20. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to managing change requests. Spec.
para. 1.
1 The Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. as
the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2013-010942
Application 12/164,623
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method executed by a data processing system for managing
change requests in an enterprise, the method comprising:
defining by the data processing system a plurality of
factors for assessing risk associated with implementing changes
within an enterprise wherein a plurality of risk assessment
characteristics is associated with each factor;
receiving, through a user interface, an identification of one
of the plurality of risk assessment characteristics for each of the
plurality of factors, wherein the received identification of risk
assessment characteristics for the plurality of factors is
associated with a particular request for approval of a change
within the enterprise;
identifying by the data processing system a maximum
overall risk assessment level for the particular request based on
the received identification of risk assessment characteristics for
each of a first subset of the plurality of factors and a second
subset of the plurality of factors, the second subset including at
least one factor included in the first subset; and
determining by the data processing system an overall risk
assessment level for the particular request based, at least in part,
on the maximum overall risk assessment level.
Claims 1-6 and 82-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eder (US 2004/0215551 Al, pub. Oct. 28, 2004) and
Wiley (US 7,526,806 B2, iss. Apr. 28, 2009).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
2 Claim 8 depends from canceled claim 7, and claim 8 may have been
intended to have been canceled, because, as with the language of claim 7,
nearly identical language has been amended to be part of claim 1.
2
Appeal2013-010942
Application 12/164,623
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6 and 8-12
We are not persuaded by the Appellants' argument that Wiley fails to
disclose the claimed "identifying" limitation, because, according to the
Appellants, the Wiley disclosure of "merely one or a subset of four may be
used," along with Wiley's list of factors, does not indicate sufficiently that
the second subset includes at least one factor in the first subset, as claimed.
Appeal Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3.
In support of the claim language at issue, the Appellants direct us to
element 225 in Appellants' Figure 2. Appeal Br. 3. In Figure 2, shown
below, Factors A, B, and C all are identified as element 225:
210
\
245
"----
Change Severi•y Assessment !nlerface 200
FactorC~
225
Maximum Risk
Assessment
Level
o,·erall Risk
Asse,;sment
1.,w.,1
250 Level 1
---f-,- L.evcy! 2
Leve!~~
255 ·--0 level 1 L.eve! 2
LPV.f:! 3
Appellants' Figure 2, showing each of Factors A, B, and C
identified as element 225.
Based on the Appellants' original disclosure, we find nothing specifically
required for, or affected by, a factor's inclusion or non-inclusion in a
subgroup, or more than one subgroup.
3
Appeal2013-010942
Application 12/164,623
In rejecting the claim, the Examiner relies on Wiley, at least at column
6, lines 46-58 (Answer 4), which discloses "an event risk rating 328 is
calculated based upon attack severity rating 320, signature fidelity rating
322, attack relevance rating 324, and target value rating 326." Wiley, col. 6,
11. 46-48. Wiley also discloses "instead of utilizing all four of the
component risk factors, merely one or a subset of four may be used." Wiley,
col. 6, 11. 57-58. Because Wiley instructs the ordinary artisan that factors
may be utilized together or in subgroups, we are persuaded that the artisan
would thus have recognized that those factors may be arranged variously to
include different and overlapping subgroups.
Specifically, based on these disclosures, the ordinary artisan would
recognize that the factors may be arranged in one or more subsets. See KSR
Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making the
obviousness determination one "can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."') For
example, Wiley's attack severity rating 320 and attack relevance rating 324
may be grouped together, because they both deal with attacks. In addition,
the attack relevance rating 324 may be grouped with the target value rating
326, because they may relate to importance of attack targets. Thus, a first
subset could include Wiley's elements 320, 322, and 324, and a second
subset could include elements 324 and 326, such that element 324 is a
member of both subsets. We are persuaded, at a minimum, that such mixing
and matching would have been known to one of ordinary skill under an
obviousness standard.
4
Appeal2013-010942
Application 12/164,623
For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 that are not argued
separately. Appeal Br. 7.
Claims 13-17
Independent claim 13 recites risk weighting values, "wherein the risk
weighting values are non-numerical values."
We are persuaded by the Appellants' argument that the identified
"Target Value Rating" in Wiley is not a risk weighting value, because they
are not used to determine an overall risk assessment level, or a maximum
overall risk assessment level. Appeal Br. 7-8, Reply Br. 3--4.
Wiley discloses textual "Target Value Rating," and numeric "Target
Value Point Values," in a cited table (Answer 7), which follows:
·t~~rg~ \:'.~~::e
F·:...J;i ~ \~::~n~>
Table showing relationship between Target Value Rating text
and Target Value Point Value, at Wiley, column 6, lines 38--45.
Wiley further discloses a method for the calculation that involves the Target
Value Rating 326, as follows:
ERR=floor(((ASR)*(SFR)*(ARR)*(TVR))/1000000, 100).
Wiley, col. 6, 11. 51-52. The mathematical nature of the formula indicates
that it is not the metadata Target Value Rating that is used in the calculation,
but instead the associated Target Value Point Value, which is a numeric
value. Independent claim 13 recites explicitly "non-number values." Wiley
does not disclose a method of calculating either an overall risk assessment
5
Appeal2013-010942
Application 12/164,623
level, or a maximum overall risk assessment level, as claimed, using non-
numeric values.
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim
13, nor of dependent claims 14--17 rejected along with claim 13.
Claims 18-20
Independent claim 18 recites "risk weighting values associated with
the risk assessment characteristics are scaled to arrive at the overall risk
assessment level."
We are not persuaded by the Appellants' argument that the cited
section of Wiley, at column 6, lines 31--45, does not disclose scaling risk
weighting values. Appeal Br. 10, Reply Br. 7.
Wiley discloses that factors of the "Signature Fidelity Rating 322"
involve values where "each of these factors is weighed from 0.95 to 1.0."
Wiley, col. 5, 11. 17-18. Wiley further utilizes this rating value in
calculating risk values. Wiley, col. 6, 11. 46--48. For this reason, we sustain
the rejection of independent claim 18, as well as of dependent claims 19 and
20 that are not argued separately. Appeal Br. 10.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 13-17.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, and 18-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6