Ex Parte Labadie et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201412327096 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ERIC LABADIE, BRENT A. MILLER, DAVID M. OGLE, and JOHN W. SWEITZER ____________ Appeal 2012-003550 Application 12/327,0961 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, HUNG H. BUI, and KIMBERLY J. McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges. McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2012-003550 Application 12/327,096 2 BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention is directed to an autonomic computing system and to methods and computer program products to manage knowledge in an autonomic computing system. Appeal Br. 2. Autonomic computing systems have system components termed “autonomic managers” that can perform actions that make the computer system more self-managing. Spec. ¶ 3. The autonomic manager may perform a monitor-analyze-plan-execute (MAPE) loop that may involve monitoring, analyzing any data or information received, planning any actions as a result of the analysis, and executing the actions. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 22, 29–30. The autonomic computing system also contains “symptom knowledge,” such as knowledge related to conditions, events or other occurrences within the autonomic computing system that may influence how an autonomic manager is to respond in performing the autonomic computing loop. Spec. ¶ 29. Claims 1, 10, 13, and 18 are independent claims. Independent claim 1 is the focus of the Appellants’ brief and is reproduced below: 1. An autonomic computing system, comprising: an autonomic manager operating on a computer system; and a knowledge source in a memory, the knowledge source being accessible by the autonomic manager and any other entities associated with the autonomic computing system, wherein the knowledge source comprises: a service interface adapted for the autonomic manager to access the knowledge source, wherein knowledge is loadable from the knowledge source to the autonomic manager via the service interface, wherein the loadable knowledge comprises symptom knowledge related to conditions, events and other Appeal 2012-003550 Application 12/327,096 3 occurrences within the autonomic computing system influencing how the autonomic manager is to respond in performing a monitor, analyze, plan and execute (MAPE) autonomic computing loop; and a multiplicity of knowledge elements. Claims App’x 11 (disputed limitations in italics). THE REJECTION The Examiner has maintained the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Chefalas et al. (US 7,318,226 B2, issued Jan. 8, 2008). Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner found that Chefalas, which is titled Distributed Autonomic Solutions Repository, allows “symptom knowledge,” such as steps used to solve a problem, to be loaded from a knowledge source to an autonomic manager and that the specific knowledge influences how the autonomic managers responds in performing a monitor, analyze, plan and execute (MAPE) autonomic copying loop. Final Action 2–3, citing Chefalas, col. 5, ll. 9–19 and Disclosure in its entirety. Chefalas discloses that after a user indicates that a problem has been identified and that a solution to the problem has been completed successfully, the steps are returned to a server process for addition to a knowledge base. Final Action 3; Chefalas col. 5, ll. 9–13. The steps may be played back or executed on another data processing system that is experiencing a similar problem. Final Action 3; Chefalas col. 5, ll. 13–15. The recorded steps may be analyzed with respect to a current solution for the same problem and the analysis can determine if the steps to the current solution have changed. Final Action 3; Chefalas col. 5, ll. 15–19. The Examiner found that “analyzing the steps Appeal 2012-003550 Application 12/327,096 4 recorded with respect to a current solution for the same problem and analyzing whether the steps to the current solution have changed” is a way of influencing how the autonomic manager (i.e., agent) is to respond in performing a MAPE autonomic computing loop when the system encounters a similar problem in the future (i.e., played back or executed on another data processing system with a similar problem). Final Action 3–4; see also Answer 5, citing Chefalas, col. 5, ll. 9–28 and 54–55. ANALYSIS Claim 1 The Appellants argue that Chefalas does not disclose the following elements of claim 1: a service interface adapted for the autonomic manager to access the knowledge source, wherein knowledge is loadable from the knowledge source to the autonomic manager via the service interface, wherein the loadable knowledge comprises symptom knowledge related to conditions, events and other occurrences within the autonomic computing system influencing how the autonomic manager is to respond in performing a monitor, analyze, plan and execute (MAPE) autonomic computing loop . . . . Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). In particular, Appellants contend that Chefalas merely describes that a user may enter or indicate that a problem has been identified or diagnosed as well as indicate a solution to the problem has been completed successfully. The problem and solution may be returned to a server for addition to a knowledge database. The solution may then be played back or executed on another data processing system with a similar problem. Chefalas does not teach or suggest the specific features reproduced above from claim 1 related to an autonomic computing system and influencing how the Appeal 2012-003550 Application 12/327,096 5 autonomic manager is to respond in performing the MAPE autonomic computing loop. Further, Appellant can find no teaching in any of the remainder of Chefalas of the specific features of claim 1 recited above. Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). Appellants further assert that Chefalas merely discloses that the agent records the steps used in diagnosing the problem in script without the user having to take active steps beyond initiating the agent. Reply Br. 4. According to Appellants, in Chefalas “the user indicates to the agent that the problem has been diagnosed after the problem is identified, and the user then takes steps to generate a solution to the problem.” Reply Br. 4 (emphases added). Appellants thus conclude that while the recording function by the agent of Chefalas may be performed without the user, Chefalas discloses that it is the user that performs other functions and thus, the agent of Chefalas is not an autonomic manager as provided by the present invention as recited in the claims. Reply Br. 4. We disagree that Chefalas discloses only the recording feature of the agent may be performed without the user and agree with the Examiner’s findings that the agent of Chefalas is an autonomic manager and that symptom knowledge influences how the autonomic manager responds in performing a monitor, analyzes, plan and execute loop. Final Action 2–3, 6– 12. The agent, or processes implemented in an agent, is described throughout Chefalas, including Figures 4, 6, and 10. In one embodiment, the “agent 404 is started when client 400 is started, and thus continually monitors the system.” Chefalas, col. 5, ll. 52–55 (emphasis added); Final Action 3, Answer 5–6. Chefalas also discloses that “agent 404 may monitor Appeal 2012-003550 Application 12/327,096 6 system changes and record those changes rather than recording particular steps taken by the user in fixing the problem.” Chefalas col. 6, ll. 58–60 (emphases added); Fig. 4. Additionally, in one embodiment involving the “distribution of a solution from an autonomic knowledge base,” Chefalas discloses that “agent 602 may be used to monitor program 604 to determine where the failure or error occurs.” Chefalas, col. 7, ll. 28–34 (emphases added). The “[a]gent 602 accesses local rules database 606 in the event that an error occurs. This local rules database may be used to identify a particular problem as well as identify solutions for that problem. Local rules database 606 is updated using rules database 608.” Col. 7, ll. 34–38 (emphases added); Fig. 6, Answer 6. Figure 10 provides a flowchart of a process for updating a local rules database. Chefalas, col. 9, ll. 39–47. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ assertions, the agent in Chefalas also monitors to determine where failures or errors occur, accesses the local rules database to identify particular problems and solutions to that problem, and updates the local rules. We find that these activities constitute a monitoring, analyzing, plan, and executing autonomic computing loop, as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 29–30. We further note that Appellants have not responded to Examiner’s assertion that the claims do not exclude users. Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, for this reason, to the extent that Appellants assert that Chefalas permits a user to indicate a problem has been identified diagnosed or solved, we do not find such arguments to demonstrate a patentable distinction. Appeal Br. 8. Appeal 2012-003550 Application 12/327,096 7 Finally, Appellants assert they “can find no teaching in any of the remainder of Chefalas of the specific features of claim 1 recited above” (Appeal Br. 8). The recited features of claim 1 are directed to “a service interface adapted for the autonomic manager to access the knowledge source, wherein knowledge is loadable from the knowledge source to the autonomic manager via the service interface.” However, the Examiner cites to column 7, lines 48–51 as disclosing a service interface that allows the autonomic manager to load specific knowledge from the knowledge source. Final Action 8 (“Chefalas further teaches wherein the service interface allows the autonomic manager to perform a group of functions comprising . . . load specific knowledge from the knowledge source”); see also Answer 7 (same); Chefalas col. 7, ll. 48–50 (stating that the “server process 610 may push updates to agent 602 to update locale rules database 606”). Appellants have provided no argument as to why this disclosure does not constitute a service interface, as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. Claims 2-20 Appellants assert that independent claims 10, 13, and 18 recite similar features to independent claim 1 and are patentably distinct over Chefalas for the same reasons as claim 1. Appellants also argue that dependent claims 2– 9, 11, 12, 14–17, 19, and 20 are patentably distinct for the same reasons as the independent claims. Appeal Br. 8–9. Because we do not find any deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 over Chefalas, we similarly conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 2–20 over Chefalas. Appeal 2012-003550 Application 12/327,096 8 As to Appellants’ blanket assertion that claims 2–9 “recite additional features which further patentably distinguish over Chefalas,” we can only consider such attorney argument to the extent that it points to specific errors in the rejections of the claims. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2–20 as anticipated by Chefalas. DECISION Considering the evidence of record and arguments of the Appellants, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation