Ex Parte Schwartz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

12830233 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/830,233 07/02/2010 Dror SCHWARTZ
56436 7590 03/21/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82262384 1102
EXAMINER
SUGENT, JAMES F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DROR SCHWARTZ, AMIR KESSNER,
AMON MATHIAS, and ITHAI LEVI
Appeal2014-005041
Application 12/830,233
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, HUNG H. BUI, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005041
Application 12/830,233
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, mailed on May 17, 2013. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1 and 12 under appeal read as follows (emphasis
added):
1. An automation system, comprising:
an event processor configured to detect events affecting
execution of an application being monitored by the automation
system;
a plurality of rules, each rule configured to analyze at least one
of the detected events and to provide a result of the analysis that is
further analyzed by a different one of the rules; and
a rule engine coupled to the event processor and the plurality of
rules;
wherein the rule engine is configured to apply each rule to at
least one of the detected events based on a value of the rule that
determines an event type that the rule is configured to analyze;
wherein the events comprise input device signals to affect
execution of the application.
12. A method, comprising:
executing, by a processor, an application program;
detecting, by the processor, a first event affecting the
execution;
invoking, by the processor, a first rule that analyzes the detected
first event and an effect of the first event on the execution;
2
Appeal2014-005041
Application 12/830,233
providing, by the processor, a result of the analysis by the first
rule·
'
creating a second event responsive to providing the result;
invoking, by the processor, a second rule that analyzes the
second event and the result of the analysis by the first rule; and
providing, by the processor, a result of the analysis by the
second rule;
wherein the result of the analysis by the first rule and the result
of the analysis by the second rule comprise steps stored as a script
describing operations affecting the application program.
Examiner's Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Joseph (US 7,289,988 B2; issued Oct. 30,
2007). 1
The Examiner rejected claims 3---6 and 9 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Joseph and Aoyama (US
2009/0030866 Al; published Jan. 29, 2009). 2
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 12-20 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Joseph and Aoyama. 3
1 As to this rejection, our decision as to the rejection of independent claim 1
is determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of
claims 2, 7, 8, 10, and 11, is not discussed further herein.
2 As to this rejection, our decision as to the rejection of independent claim 1
is determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of
claims 3---6 and 9 is not discussed further herein.
3 As to this rejection, our decision as to the rejection of independent claim 12
is determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of
claims 13-20, is not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2014-005041
Application 12/830,233
Appellants' Contentions4
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
[T]he cited portion of Joseph teaches processing of an event,
but fails to disclose that the event is an event affecting
execution of an application being monitored by the automation
system as recited by claim 1. Rather, Joseph teaches that
detected events are outputs of an application or other
component, but fails to teach that the event affects execution of
a monitored application .... The cited portion of Joseph teaches
that the source of an event may be hardware. However, as
shown in Joseph Fig. 2, and associated text at col. 5, lines 11-
1 7, the events generated by the hardware 12 are not events that
affect execution of the application 2, or any application being
monitored by the automation system as recited by claim 1.
App Br. 12, footnote omitted.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
As shown in Joseph Fig. 2, the application 2 is monitored via
outputs (log file 6) produced by the application 2, rather than by
detection and analysis of input device signals that affect the
execution of the application as recited by claim 1 . ... claim 1
requires detection and analysis of events that affect a monitored
application, where the events are input device signals. . . . the
system of Joseph is directed to management of events from a
multitude of sources in a distributed system, (i.e., creating a
mission control center for an entire distributed environment).
Such event management is collection of status data, log data,
error information, etc. and discloses nothing with regard to
4 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein.
4
Appeal2014-005041
Application 12/830,233
event detection and analysis for input device signals that affect
operation of a monitored application.
App Br. 12-13, footnotes omitted.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Independent claim 12 recites "executing ... an application
program [and] detecting ... a first event affecting the execution
[of the application program]." ... Joseph teaches that the rules
process events that are outputs of applications, such as log files,
rather than events that affect the execution of applications as
recited by claim 12. Consequently, the events processed by
Joseph are not events that affect execution of an application
program as required by claim 12.
App Br. 14, footnote omitted.
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Independent claim 12 also requires "invoking ... a first rule that
analyzes the detected first event and an effect of the first event
on the execution [of the application program]." ... [T]he cited
portion of Joseph fails to teach that a rule analyzes an effect of
the event on the execution of the application program as recited
by claim 12. Joseph fails to even suggest that the processing
engine of Fig. 2 has access to an application that would allow a
rule to determine the effect of an event on the execution of the
application. Furthermore, as noted above, the events of Joseph
are application outputs, or outputs of programs or hardware,
and Joseph fails to teach or suggest that these outputs affect an
application's execution.
App Br. 15, emphasis added.
5
Appeal2014-005041
Application 12/830,233
5. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Independent claim 12 yet further requires "providing, by the
processor, a result of the analysis by the second rule; wherein
the result of the analysis by the first rule and the result of the
analysis by the second rule comprise steps stored as a script
describing operations affecting the application program." ...
Aoyama teaches generation of a modified rule and storing the
rule in a rule storage module. Aoyama fails to teach or suggest
that results of analysis by first and second rules comprise steps
stored as a script describing operations affecting the application
program. Rather, Aoyama merely teaches that a rule for
classifying a picture is modified and stored in a storing module.
App Br. 15-16.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because
Joseph fails to disclose the argued limitations?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 12 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Joseph and Aoyama fail to disclose the
argued limitations?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants' above recited contentions.
As to claim 1, most particularly the Examiner is construing "input
device signals" as signals that are input from a device (i.e., hardware). Ans.
13, line 7. In contrast, Appellants are construing "input device signals" as
signals from an input device. That is, Examiner reads "input" as a verb and
the Appellants read "input" as an adjective modifying the device.
6
Appeal2014-005041
Application 12/830,233
Appellants' interpretation is the better as Appellants' interpretation is
consistent with the "input device" of Appellants' Specification. i-fi-f 17, 18,
and 29. We find no use of the term 'input" as a verb in the claim, nor do we
find the term used as a verb in combination with a device in Appellants'
Specification.
As to claim 12, most particularly, the Examiner provides no response
to Appellants contention 4 above. Further, we disagree with the Examiner's
equating adding a new rule into a job (Final Act. 5) with the claimed "steps
stored as a script describing operations affecting the application program."
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, and 11 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 3---6, 9, and 12-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1-20 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
7