William K. Bittner et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 4, 201913777218 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/777,218 02/26/2013 William K. Bittner AUS920120168US2 2267 65362 7590 09/04/2019 TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP IBM Austin P.O. BOX 203518 AUSTIN, TX 78720 EXAMINER MACILWINEN, JOHN MOORE JAIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2442 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2019 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@dockettrak.com tmunoz@tcciplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WILLIAM K. BITTNER, ANN M. FUNAI, and SCOTT L. WINTERS ____________________ Appeal 2018-009146 Application 13/777,2181 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3–6, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Br. 2. Claims 2 and 7–18 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, International Business Machines Corporation is the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-009146 Application 13/777,218 2 Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim The disclosed invention relates to obtaining information in real time about hardware in a data processing system environment. Spec. ¶¶ 1–2. The information may be gathered through a camera of a smart phone, and the information may be overlaid over the image of the physical hardware. Id. at 5. Independent claim 1 exemplifies the disclosed invention and reads as follows: 1. A method for facilitating examination of conditions across physical machines comprising: defining presentation of software stacks executing on physical hardware in a data processing system environment; defining presentation of information regarding a physical installed hardware environment of the data processing system environment; obtaining information in real time about the physical hardware in the data processing system environment while in proximity with the physical hardware, the obtaining information comprising continuously capturing images of proximate physical hardware in the data processing environment via a camera of a computing device; identifying the physical hardware based upon the information about the physical hardware, the identifying using information contained within the continuously captured images of the proximate physical hardware; obtaining condition information regarding physical hardware based upon the identifying; and, overlaying the condition information with the continuously captured images of the proximate physical hardware, the condition information comprising information associated with the physical device regarding the software stacks executing on the physical hardware. Appeal 2018-009146 Application 13/777,218 3 Dependent claims 3–6 are not argued separately from claim 1. Br. 3. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3–6 stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Mick et al. (US 2013/0031202 A1, published Jan. 31, 2013, filed July 26, 2011) (hereinafter, “Mick”) in view of Barroux (US 6,220,768 B1, issued Apr. 24, 2001). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 2–5) in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred (Br. 2–3). Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ contentions (Ans. 3–5). For the reasons explained below, we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion concerning unpatentability under § 103(a). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action and Answer. See Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 3–5. We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments. Appellants first argue that the references lack a disclosure or suggestion of identifying physical hardware based upon information obtained by continuously capturing images of physical hardware via a camera of a computing device. Br. 2–3. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner relies upon Mick to teach or suggests these limitations. With respect to “continuously capturing images of physical hardware via a camera of a computing device, the Examiner points to Mick’s usage of “a Appeal 2018-009146 Application 13/777,218 4 live image of the [equipment] rack obtained from the image capture device of the smart phone.” Final Act 3–4; Ans. 3–4, quoting Mick ¶¶ 13, 14, 19. With respect to identifying physical hardware based upon information obtained from these images, the Examiner points to Mick’s usage of “imaging the entire rack” wherein identification can be based on a “barcode, matrix code such as a so-called quick response code, or other machine readable identifier.” Ans. 4, quoting Mick ¶ 13. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion, noting that the identification disclosed in Appellants’ Specification may be based on a quick response code of the physical device, and performed by a smart phone camera. Spec. ¶¶ 39, 42. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Mick to teach or suggest the contested limitations. Appellants next argue that the combination of Mick and Barroux, and Barroux specifically, fails to teach overlaying condition information, associated with the physical device regarding the software stack executing on the physical hardware, with images of the physical hardware. Br. 3. Appellants argue Barroux teaches or suggests only a database that includes a software packages table. Id. We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellants’ argument that Barroux fails to teach overlaying condition information is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on the combination of Mick and Barroux for that feature. The Examiner relies upon Mick to teach or suggest overlaying condition information about physical systems such as data servers with images of the physical hardware. Final Act. 2. The Examiner relies upon Barroux for teaching or suggesting that the information can be of software stacks executing on physical hardware in a data processing system. Ans. 5. Appellants have merely Appeal 2018-009146 Application 13/777,218 5 argued the individual references separately, rather than arguing that the combination of the teachings of the references fairly teaches or suggests the claimed invention. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Appellants have not provided a persuasive argument that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error. Since claims 3–6 stand or fall with claim 1, Appellants have not provided a persuasive argument that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–6 is in error. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation