William K. Bittner et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 4, 2019

13777218 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2019)

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