Ex Parte Hadar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2019

14526680 (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. § 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. § 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. § 101
for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. However, the Examiner
subsequently withdrew this§ 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. § 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. § 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 parameter§. for a network device," including using a
"knowledge database" to set network device "configuration parameter§.."
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. § 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. § 103(a).
Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 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. § 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. § 103(a).
REVERSE
11