Ex Parte Labadie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

12327096 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

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