Ex Parte Mendonca et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 2012

10982039 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte JOHN J. MENDONCA and RICHARD H. VAN GAASBECK ________________ Appeal 2010-006484 Application 10/982,039 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JASON V. MORGAN, and RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006484 Application 10/982,039 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 – 13, and 15 – 19. Claims 3, 14, and 20 are cancelled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We affirm. Invention The invention relates to methods and systems for automatically configuring remote monitoring of provisionable resources. See Abstract. A setup utility 220 can install policies 222 and/or reporting agents 224 on provisionable resources 240 (resulting in installed policies 254, 264, 274, 284 and installed reporting agents 252, 262, 272, 282) to allow the network operations center 210 to automatically and directly monitor the “health” of provisionable resources 240. Spec. 10, ll. 22 – 25; see also Spec. fig. 2. Exemplary Claim 1. A computer-implemented method of automatically configuring remote monitoring of a provisionable resource, the method comprising: receiving information describing the provisionable resource without requiring manual entry of the information, wherein the provisionable resource is a provisionable computer resource; automatically configuring a list of monitored resources with the information, wherein a network operations center is enabled to remotely monitor the provisionable resource; and automatically installing, based on the information, a policy and a reporting agent on the provisionable resource, wherein the reporting agent uses the policy to determine what Appeal 2010-006484 Application 10/982,039 3 second information about the provisionable resource to report to the network operations center. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4 – 13, and 15 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chellis (US 6,901,446 B2; May 31, 2005; filed Feb. 28, 2001) and Miyamoto (US 7,058,797 B2; June 6, 2006; filed Sept. 10, 2002). Ans. 4 – 10. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the invention of claim 1 would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in light of the combined teachings and suggestions of Chellis and Miyamoto because their respective teachings and suggestions would render the references inoperable for their intended purposes? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. The Examiner finds that Chellis, which is directed to a system and method for describing and automatically managing resources, teaches or suggests most of the recitations of claim 1. See Ans. 4 – 5. However, the Examiner relies on Miyamoto, in combination with Chellis, to teach or Appeal 2010-006484 Application 10/982,039 4 suggest “installing a reporting agent on the provisionable resource.” Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted) (citing Miyamoto col. 5, ll. 30 – 45). In particular, the Examiner finds that Chellis teaches discovery of a new server, see Ans. 11 (citing Chellis col. 5, ll. 19 – 22), while Miyamoto teaches downloading software, a provisioning agent, to monitor resources, see Ans. 11; see also Ans. 5 (citing Miyamoto col. 5, ll. 30 – 45). The Examiner therefore finds that the combination of Chellis and Miyamoto teaches or suggests installing a reporting agent—the provisioning agent of Miyamoto—on the newly discovered server of Chellis. See Ans. 11. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because Chellis requires “updating resource information in response to ever changing resource information,” but Miyamoto requires “static information, such as static hardware characteristics and static boot-up parameters.” App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants argue that Miyamoto teaches “receiving a subset from a set of hardware characteristics as part of bootstrapping a computer system . . . . As any one of ordinary skill in the art understands, hardware characteristics are static.” App. Br. 9. In other words, Appellants argue that Chellis is directed to environments having dynamic information and Miyamoto is directed to environments having static information, and therefore the teachings and suggestions of the references would render each other inoperable for their intended purposes. See Reply Br. 3. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of error. Appellants do not provide sufficiently persuasive evidence that an artisan of ordinary skill would understand the hardware characteristics of Miyamoto to be static. Appellants’ assertions amount to unsupported attorney argument, and Appeal 2010-006484 Application 10/982,039 5 therefore we give them little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, the newly discovered server in Chellis can have a static hardware configuration. When the server has come online and been discovered, the system of Chellis “may then automatically adjust stored data and/or its allocation rules and/or algorithms to account for the availability of the additional resource [the newly online server].” Chellis col. 5, ll. 24 – 27. Thus, it is the fact that the server has come online and been discovered that makes the environment of Chellis dynamic. Similarly, the environment in which the target machine of Miyamoto operates can be dynamic, even if the target machine’s hardware configuration is static. See Miyamoto col. 5, ll. 38 – 39 (provision agent provided to target machine after discovery). Thus, the teachings and suggestions of Chellis and Miyamoto do not render each other inoperable for their intended purposes. Therefore, we do not find error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of Chellis and Miyamoto. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 4 – 13, and 15 – 19, which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 9 – 13. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4 – 13, and 15 – 19 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2010-006484 Application 10/982,039 6 AFFIRMED msc