Ex Parte Hadar et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 23, 2019

14526680 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/526,680 10/29/2014 131406 7590 01/25/2019 Gilliam IP PLLC (CA) 7200 N. Mopac Suite 440 Austin, TX 78731 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eitan Hadar 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. 104.20090086US2 1077 EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2019 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): uspto@gilliamip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EITAN HADAR, KIERON JOHN JAMES CONNELLY, OLGA LAGUNOV A, MITCHELL EDWARD ENGEL, and PETER ANTHONY LAZZARO Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of all pending claims, namely, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-22. App. Br. 1. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify CA, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 This Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed November 8, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed February 8, 2018 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed May 11, 2018 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed May 31, 2018 ("Reply Br."); and Appellants' Specification filed October 29, 2014 ("Spec."). Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention Appellants' application relates to "systems, methods, and software to identify and resolve violations of [information technology (IT)] system and process performance measuring metrics." Abstract. "Following identification of such a violation, some embodiments may identify and cause a solution to be implemented. Following implementation of a solution, the violated metrics are again applied and the results evaluated to verify resolution of the metric violation." Abstract. According to the Specification, "[a]utomated and manual configuration changes [ to IT systems] ... may be performed through use of patterns. Patterns refer to recommendations for designing and implementing well-known solutions to well-defined problems." Spec. ,r 31. "Patterns are also used in some embodiments to identify the potential presence of performance issues, either currently presented or likely to be presented in the future by a system or service configuration." Spec. ,r 32. In an exemplary embodiment, "when a configuration change [to an IT system or service model] is identified, the current configuration of the service model is compared to the pervious [sic: previous] configuration to identify the modified CI [ configuration item] configuration settings." Spec. ,r 54. "When [a] health indicator changes upward, indicating the service model is healthier, the identified CI configuration settings are stored as a candidate pattern." Spec. ,r 54. Upon detection of a performance metric violation in an IT system, an infrastructure monitoring and management server "may search the stored [candidate] patterns ... to identify a pattern that may be implemented to resolve the performance metric violation. When 2 Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 a pattern is identified, the pattern may be automatically implemented, such as through a provisioning application or process." Spec. ,r 56. Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal: 8. A method comprising: receiving, from a user interface utilized to select patterns, a selected pattern to be implemented for a service model that corresponds to a system comprising a set of information technology (IT) resources, wherein the selected pattern includes a group of configuration item configuration settings; when the selected pattern is received for implementation, issuing commands to one or more of the IT resources that correspond to configuration items included in the selected pattern to modify configuration item configuration settings based on the selected pattern; when a configuration change resulting from the commands to modify configuration item configuration settings is identified, comparing a current configuration of the service model to a previous configuration to identify modified configuration item configuration settings; in response to determining, based on a performance indicator for the system, that the system performance is improved, storing the identified modified configuration item configuration settings as a candidate pattern in a pattern database; identifying a performance indicator violation within a dataset of performance metric data for the system; querying the pattern database to retrieve the candidate pattern including the group of configuration item configuration settings; instantiating the configuration item configuration settings to implement the retrieved candidate pattern; and 3 Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 applying at least one performance metric to the IT resources to confirm the performance indicator violation has been resolved. References The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of unpatentability of the claims on appeal: Qiu Alikacem Smith US 2005/0169185 Al US 2006/0053422 Al US 2009/0204692 Al Rejections Aug. 4, 2005 Mar. 9, 2006 Aug. 13, 2009 The Examiner made the following rejections of the claims on appeal: Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. However, the Examiner subsequently withdrew thisÂ§ 101 rejection, Ans. 2, and accordingly, we do not address it herein. Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14--16, 18-20, and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Qiu. Claims 6, 13, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Qiu and Alikacem. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Smith teaches all elements of independent claim 8, except for "identifying a performance indicator violation within a dataset of performance metric data for the system." Final Act. 7. However, the Examiner finds Qiu teaches this limitation, and that it would have been 4 Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 obvious to combine Smith and Qiu "to perform [a] what-if analysis such that modifications may be made to ... [a] network to test whether the modification corrects the fault and/or otherwise improves network performance." Final Act. 8. Appellants contend Smith does not teach: (A) "receiving, from a user interface utilized to select patterns, a selected pattern to be implemented for a service model that corresponds to a system comprising a set of information technology (IT) resources, wherein the selected pattern includes a group of configuration item configuration settings" ("Selected Pattern Receiving Limitation"), App. Br. 1 O; (B) "when the selected pattern is received for implementation, issuing commands to one or more of the IT resources that correspond to configuration items included in the selected pattern to modify configuration item configuration settings based on the selected pattern" ("Issuing Commands Limitation"), App. Br. 1 O; and (C) "when a configuration change resulting from the commands to modify configuration item configuration settings is identified, comparing a current configuration of the service model to a previous configuration to identify modified configuration item configuration settings" ("Comparing Limitation"), App. Br. 11. Selected Pattern Receiving and Issuing Commands Limitations Appellants admit Smith "discloses using a user interface to determine network settings/ goals for f! network device," and that "the settings/ goals may reasonably [be] considered as an establishment of criteria to be satisfied ... within the network device and which may be translated into configuration information for the network device." App. Br. 10. However, 5 Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 Appellants argue Smith does not teach that the "'settings/goals' that may conceivably be translated into configuration information are the same as or equivalent to a 'selected pattern' (i.e., multiple features simultaneous selected) that 'includes a group of configuration item configuration settings."' App. Br. 11. In response, the Examiner finds Smith's "knowledge database ... can be used to set configuration parameters" of network devices. Ans. 3. Referencing Smith's Figure 7 and corresponding disclosure, the Examiner finds Smith teaches "operation 705," namely, a "network configuration tool accesses the knowledge database, i.e. pattern database to translate the network settings/goals from operation 703 into configuration information for the network device." Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds Smith teaches "an operation 707 for selecting an optimized configuration for the network device based on the recommended settings, i.e. a select pattern .... " Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes Smith teaches "'a select pattern includes a group of configuration item configuration settings'" and "' issu[ ing] commands to one or more of the IT resources ... based on the selected pattern."' Ans. 3. Appellants argue that the "selection of a 'pattern' logically entails a simultaneity aspect ( multiple simultaneously selected features)," and "nothing in Smith expressly or inherently discloses that two or more of the 'recommended settings' are processed as a pattern[] in terms of being received from a user interface as a 'selected pattern."' Reply Br. 4. We disagree. As noted by the Examiner, Smith teaches "a method for identifying configuration parameterÂ§. for a network device," including using a "knowledge database" to set network device "configuration parameterÂ§.." 6 Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 Smith ,r,r 10-11 ( emphasis added). We find the plural nature of "parameters" here to teach "a group of configuration item configuration settings," which constitute the "selected pattern" as recited in claim 8. Moreover, Smith's method of optimally configuring network devices by utilizing the knowledge database "is not limited to use in configuring a specific number of network devices," but rather "can be implemented to configure one or more network devices in either a parallel or serial manner." Smith ,r 59 ( emphasis added); see Fig. 7, ,r 62 ("optimal configuration settings are communicated to a network device configuration generator"). We find this parallel configuring of network devices to teach "issuing commands to one or more of the IT resources that correspond to configuration items included in the selected pattern," as recited in claim 8. Moreover, Smith teaches that a "network configuration tool will use the knowledge database content to formulate different configuration scenarios and choices that will satisfy the user-supplied network settings/goals." Smith ,r 52 ( emphasis added). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Smith teaches the Selected Pattern Receiving and Issuing Commands Limitations. Comparing Limitation Appellants argue Smith does not teach that "any operation is performed in some definable association ( when, in response, if, etc.) with the occurrence of detecting a configuration change of the network and/or device." App. Br. 11. Appellants also argue that the Comparing Limitation "expressly requires that modified configuration setting[ s] are identified as a consequence of comparing a current service model configuration to a previous service model configuration," but that Smith, on the other hand, 7 Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 teaches using a network configuration tool "to decide whether to modify the configuration based on network device test results." App. Br. 11. Appellants further argue Smith or Qiu does not teach "any operation in which a current service model configuration is compared to a previous service model configuration to identify modified configuration settings." App. Br. 12. In response, the Examiner cites Smith's Figure 7, reproduced below. ,----- { Stan ) _________________ -r, 1-ni1 ___ ./ -------i lru."3ti network device in ~etworK I i Figure 7 of Smith is "a flowchart of a method for optimally configuring a network device" by utilizing a knowledge database. Smith ,r 25. The Examiner finds Figure 7 and its corresponding disclosure in the Specification teach a decision operation (719) for determining whether test 8 Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 results from testing a network device match the expected behavior of that network device. Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds Smith teaches troubleshooting discrepancies (721) in the test results; using a network configuration tool to re-decide network settings/goals (703); and directing entry of optimal network configurations into the knowledge database. Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that these combined teachings amount to identifying and comparing different network device configurations and saving configuration changes. Ans. 4. Appellants argue: "Nowhere is the 'test' at step 715 [in Smith's Figure 7] and/ or the 'test results match' determination at step 719 characterized as being a configuration consistency test or determination." Reply Br. 5 ("Nothing in [Smith] ... indicates that the operations depicted at blocks 715 or 719 entail identifying or otherwise determining a change in configuration."). Appellants further argue Smith teaches "troubleshooting the discrepancy between the observed and expected network behavior," and not "identifying a change in system/device configuration." Reply Br. 5 ( emphasis added). We find Appellants' arguments concerning the Comparing Limitation persuasive. Although we agree with the Examiner that Smith teaches determining whether test results from transmitting test traffic through a network device match expected network device behavior, see Smith Fig. 7 ( step 719), the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or technical reasoning to support a finding that Smith teaches the Comparing Limitation. Rather, Smith teaches if the test results do not match the expected behavior, a troubleshooting operation (721) is performed. Smith ,r 57. As part of this troubleshooting operation, "the network engineer uses the network 9 Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 configuration tool to decide on network setting[s] and goals." Smith ,r 57. In other words, the network engineer identifies potential configuration parameters to be modified. However, the Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation or evidence that the identification compares the current configuration to a previous configuration to identify modified settings. Additionally, the Examiner has not shown how Smith in combination with Qiu remedies this deficiency. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Smith and Qiu teaches or suggests the Comparing Limitation of illustrative independent claim 8. For the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 8 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Because independent claims 2 and 16 contain limitations similar to independent claim 8, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 2 and 16 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, 15, 18-20, and 22, which depend directly or indirectly from one of claims 2, 8, and 16. Moreover, the Examiner has not identified how the additional reference, Alikacem, remedies the noted deficiency above. As a result, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 6, 13, and 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 10 Appeal2018-006353 Application 14/526,680 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSE 11