IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Appellant:
`
`Serial No.:
`
`Filed:
`
`For:
`
`11/327,745
`
`01/06/2006
`
`Jeff GERBER
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`System And Method For §
`Automated And Assisted §
`Resolution of IT Incidents §
`
`Confirmation No.:
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`2062
`
`2114
`
`Examiner:
`
`Chae M. Ko
`
`Docket No.:
`
`200800937-1
`
`APPEAL BRIEF
`
`Mail Stop Appeal Brief- Patents
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Date: April 29, 2009
`
`Appellant hereby submits this Appeal Brief in connection with the above(cid:173)
`
`identified application. A Notice of Appeal was electronically filed on March 16,
`
`2009.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 1 of 27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`Ill.
`IV.
`V.
`VI.
`VII.
`
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ...................................................................... 3
`RELATED APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ......................................... 4
`STATUS OF THE CLAIMS ......................................................................... 5
`STATUS OF THE AMENDMENTS ............................................................. 6
`SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER ................................. 7
`GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL .............. 13
`ARGUMENT .............................................................................................. 14
`Obviousness rejection of claims 1-6 and 21 .................................. 14
`A.
`1.
`Claims 1-6 and 21 ............................................................... 14
`Claim 5 ................................................................................ 15
`2.
`Obviousness rejection of claims 7, 11-16, 18-20, and 22-24 ........ 16
`1.
`Claims 7, 11-14, 22, and 23 ................................................ 16
`Claims 15, 16, 18-20, and 24 .............................................. 16
`2.
`Obviousness rejection of claim 10 ................................................. 17
`C.
`Obviousness rejection of claim 17 ................................................. 17
`D.
`Obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 9 ....................................... 17
`E.
`Conclusion ..................................................................................... 18
`F.
`VIII. CLAIMS APPENDIX .................................................................................. 19
`IX.
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX ............................................................................ 26
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS APPENDIX .................................................. 27
`X.
`
`B.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 2 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`I.
`
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`
`The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
`
`(HPDC), a Texas Limited Partnership, having its principal place of business in
`
`Houston, Texas. HPDC is a wholly owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company
`
`(HPC). The Assignment from the inventor to !conclude was recorded on January
`
`6, 2006, at Reel/Frame 017429/0451. The Assignment from !conclude to HPDC
`
`was recorded on May 12, 2008, at Reel/Frame 020934/0639.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 3 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`II.
`
`RELATED APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Appellant is unaware of any related appeals or interferences.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 4 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`Ill.
`
`STATUS OF THE CLAIMS
`
`Originally filed claims:
`
`Claim cancellations:
`
`Added claims:
`
`1-24.
`
`None.
`
`None.
`
`Presently pending claims: 1-24.
`
`Presently appealed claims: 1-24.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 5 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`IV.
`
`STATUS OF THE AMENDMENTS
`
`No claims were amended after the final Office action dated January 22,
`
`2009.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 6 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
`
`This section provides a concise explanation of the subject matter defined
`
`in each of the independent claims, referring to the specification by page and line
`
`number or to the drawings by reference characters as required by 37 C.F.R.
`§ 41.37(c)(1 )(v). Each element of the claims is identified with a corresponding
`reference to the specification or drawings where applicable. The specification
`
`references are made to the application as filed by Appellant. Note that the
`
`citation to passages in the specification or drawings for each claim element does
`
`not imply that the limitations from the specification and drawings should be read
`
`into the corresponding claim element. Also note that these specific references
`
`are not exclusive; there may be additional support for the subject matter
`
`elsewhere in the specification and drawings.
`
`In accordance with the invention of claim 1, a computer-implemented
`
`method for facilitating a user in defining a repair workflow for subsequent use in
`
`resolving information technology (IT) incidents comprises facilitating the user in
`
`defining a plurality of steps of the repair workflow using a computing device,
`including inputs, processing logics, and outputs of the steps. 1 The method
`further comprises facilitating the user in defining a plurality of transitions
`
`between the steps, based at least in part on the outputs of the steps, using a
`computing device. 2 The method further comprises checking the defined repair
`workflow for correctness before being used to resolve an IT incident using a
`computing device. 3
`In accordance with the invention of claim 7, a computer-implemented
`
`method for facilitating an information technology (IT) organization in resolving IT
`
`incidents comprises facilitating one or more users of the IT organization in
`
`defining a plurality of repair workflows for resolving IT incidents, including
`
`facilitating the IT organizations in defining inputs, processing logics, and outputs
`
`1 Fig. 3 (302). Disclosure p. 12 line 2.
`2 Fig. 3 (304 ). Disclosure p. 12 line 17.
`3 Fig. 3 (306). Disclosure p. 12 line 23.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 7 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`of the steps of the workflow, using one or more computing devices.4 The
`method further comprises facilitating one or more users of the IT organization in
`storing the defined repair workflows in a repair workflow repository5 and
`facilitating one or more users of the IT organization in accessing the repair
`
`workflow repository to selectively access and invoke the repair workflows to
`
`IT incidents, accessing the repair workflow repository comprises
`resolve
`authenticating the one or more users.6
`In accordance with the invention of claim 12, a computer-implemented
`
`method for facilitating an information technology (IT) organization in resolving IT
`
`incidents comprises facilitating discovery of repair actions stored on a computing
`
`server, each of the repair actions comprises executable code adapted to perform
`one or more operations in a repair to resolve an IT incident. 7 The method further
`the computing server,
`facilitating a client device coupled with
`comprises
`
`authenticating a user of the client device, executing a repair workflow in
`
`discovering the repair actions, and selectively invoking the repair actions to
`perform operations for the repair workflow. 8
`In accordance with the invention of claim 15, a computer-implemented
`
`method for resolving an information technology (IT) incident, comprises loading a
`
`repair workflow having a plurality of steps and transitions between the steps,
`
`defined to repair the IT incident on a computing device, each of the steps having
`one or more inputs, processing logic for the input(s) and one or more outputs. 9
`The method further comprises creating a repair frame for the loaded repair
`workflow on the computing device10 and creating a repair context for the repair
`
`4 Fig. 4 (402). Disclosure p. 13 line 15.
`5 Fig. 4 (404). Disclosure p. 131ine 17.
`6 Fig. 4 (406, 408). Disclosure p. 14 lines 1-6.
`7 Figs. 5a, 5b. Disclosure p. 14 line 7 through p. 16 line 19.
`8 Fig. 5a (502). Disclosure p. 14 line 8.
`9 Fig. 5a (508). Disclosure p. 14 line 17.
`1° Fig. 5a (512). Disclosure p. 14 line 20.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 8 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`frame on the computing device, and populating the repair frame with configuration
`data. 11 Further, the method comprises binding one or more data values to the
`one or more inputs of one of the steps within the repair context, 12 processing the
`bound data values of the one or more inputs of the step within the repair
`context, 13 executing the step's operation, 14 extracting the one or more outputs of
`step within the context, 15 and selecting a transition to transition to another step
`within the context, based at least in part on the extracted one or more outputs. 16
`In accordance with the invention of claim 21, an article of manufacture
`comprises a storage medium 17 and a plurality of programming instructions
`stored in the storage medium 18 and adapted to program an apparatus to enable
`the apparatus to perform various tasks. Such tasks include, for example,
`
`facilitating a user in defining a plurality of steps of a repair workflow using a
`
`computing device, including inputs, processing logics, and outputs of the
`steps, 19 facilitating the user in defining a plurality of transitions between the
`steps, based at least in part on the outputs of the steps, using a computing
`device, 20 and checking the defined repair workflow for correctness before being
`used to resolve an IT incident using a computing device.21
`
`11 Fig. 5a (514). Disclosure p. 14 line 26.
`12 Fig. 5a (516). Disclosure p. 15 line 3.
`13 Fig. 5a (522). Disclosure p. 15 line 13.
`14 Fig. 5a (524). Disclosure p. 151ine 15.
`15 Fig. 5a (526). Disclosure p. 15 line 29.
`16 Fig. 5a (528). Disclosure p. 15 line 30.
`17 Disclosure p. 19 lines 19-26.
`18 Disclosure p. 19 line 27 through p. 20 line 10.
`19 Fig. 3 (302). Disclosure p. 12 line 2.
`2° Fig. 3 (304). Disclosure p. 12 line 17.
`21 Fig. 3 (306). Disclosure p. 12 line 23.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 9 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`In accordance with the invention of claim 22, an article of manufacture
`comprises a storage medium 22 and a plurality of programming instructions
`stored in the storage medium 23 and adapted to program an apparatus to
`perform various tasks. Such tasks include facilitating one or more users of an IT
`
`organization in defining a plurality of repair workflows for resolving IT incidents,
`
`including facilitating the IT organizations in defining inputs, processing logics,
`
`and outputs of the steps of the workflow, using one or more computing
`devices, 24 facilitating one or more users of the IT organization in storing the
`defined repair workflows in a repair workflow repository, 25 and facilitating one or
`more users of the IT organization in accessing the repair workflow repository to
`
`selectively access and invoke the repair workflows to resolve IT incidents,
`
`accessing the repair workflow repository comprises authenticating the one or
`more users. 26
`In accordance with the invention of claim 23, an apparatus comprises a
`storage medium 27 having a plurality of programming instructions stored in the
`storage medium28 and adapted to enable the apparatus to facilitate discovery of
`repair actions stored on a computing server. 29 Each of the repair actions
`comprises executable code adapted to perform one or more operations in a
`
`repair to resolve an IT incident, and facilitate a client device to authenticate a
`user of the client device, 30 execute a repair workflow in discovering the repair
`actions, and selectively invoke the repair actions to perform operations for the
`
`22 Disclosure p. 19 lines 19-26.
`23 Disclosure p. 19 line 27 through p. 20 line 10.
`24 Fig. 4 (402). Disclosure p. 131ine 15.
`25 Fig. 4 (404). Disclosure p. 131ine 17.
`26 Fig. 4 (406, 408). Disclosure p. 14 lines 1-6.
`27 Disclosure p. 19 lines 19-26.
`28 Disclosure p. 191ine 27 through p. 20 line 10.
`29 Figs. 5a, 5b. Disclosure p. 14 line 7 through p. 16 line 19.
`3° Fig. 5a (502). Disclosure p. 14 line 8.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 10 of 27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`repair workflow. 31 Further, one or more processors are coupled to the storage
`medium to execute the programming instructions. 32
`In accordance with the invention of claim 24, an apparatus comprises a
`storage medium 33 having a plurality of programming instructions stored in the
`storage medium, and adapted to enable the apparatus to perform a method.34
`One or more processors are coupled to the storage medium to execute the
`programming instructions.35 The method comprises loading a repair workflow
`having a plurality of steps and transitions between the steps, defined to repair
`
`the IT incident on a computing device, each of the steps having one or more
`inputs, processing logic for the input(s) and one or more outputs. 36 The method
`further comprises creating a repair frame for the loaded repair workflow on the
`computing device37 and creating a repair context for the repair frame on the
`computing device, and populating the repair frame with configuration data. 38
`The method further comprises binding one or more data values to the one or
`more inputs of one of the steps within the repair context, 39 processing the bound
`data values of the one or more inputs of the step within the repair context,40
`executing the step's operation, 41 extracting the one or more outputs of step
`
`31 Fig. 4 (406, 408). Disclosure p. 14 lines 1-6.
`32 Disclosure p. 19 lines 19-26.
`33 Disclosure p. 19 lines 19-26.
`34 Disclosure p. 19 line 27 through p. 20 line 10.
`35 Disclosure p. 19 lines 19-26.
`36 Fig. 5a (508). Disclosure p. 14 line 17.
`37 Fig. 5a (512). Disclosure p. 14 line 20.
`38 Fig. 5a (514). Disclosure p. 14 line 26.
`39 Fig. 5a (516). Disclosure p. 15 line 3.
`4° Fig. 5a (522). Disclosure p. 15 line 13.
`41 Fig. 5a (524). Disclosure p. 15 line 15.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 11 of 27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`within the context,42 and selecting a transition to transition to another step within
`the context, based at least in part on the extracted one or more outputs.43
`
`42 Fig. 5a (526). Disclosure p. 15 line 29.
`43 Fig. 5a (528). Disclosure p. 15 line 30.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 12 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`VI.
`
`GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL
`Whether claims 1-6 and 21 are obvious (35 U.S.C. § 1 03) over Ahmad
`(U.S. Pat. No. 6,029,258) in view of Miller (U.S. Pat. No. 6,742,141).
`
`Whether claims 7, 11-16, 18-20 and 22-24 are obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`over Ahmad in view of Marvit (U.S. Pat. No. 7,096,355).
`Whether claim 10 is obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103) over Ahmad in view of
`Marvit and Armstrong (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0230328).
`
`Whether claim 17 is obvious (35 U.S.C. § 103) over Ahmad in view Marvit,
`Allen (U.S. Pat. No. 6,742,141), and Adedeji (U.S. Pub. No. 20030171877).
`Whether claims 8 and 9 are obvious (35 U.S.C. § 1 03) over Ahmad in view
`of Marvit, and O'Brien (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0133561 ).
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 13 of 27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`VII. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Obviousness rejection of claims 1-6 and 21
`1.
`Claims 1-6 and 21
`
`Claim 1 is as follows:
`
`A computer implemented method for facilitating a user in defining a repair
`workflow for subsequent use in resolving information technology (IT) incidents,
`comprising:
`facilitating the user in defining a plurality of steps of the repair workflow
`using a computing device, including inputs, processing logics, and outputs of
`the steps;
`facilitating the user in defining a plurality of transitions between the steps,
`based at least in part on the outputs of the steps, using a computing device; and
`checking the defined repair workflow for correctness before being used to
`resolve an IT incident using a computing device.
`
`Claim 1 is thus directed to defining a repair workflow. The claimed method
`
`includes, for example, facilitating a user to define a plurality of steps of the
`
`workflow and transitions between the steps. The method also comprises
`
`"checking the defined repair workflow for correctness before being used to
`
`resolve an IT incident using a computing device." Thus, per this latter limitation,
`
`the defined workflow, which comprises various steps and defines transitions
`
`between the steps, is checked for correctness.
`
`For this latter "checking" limitation, the Examiner conceded that Ahmad
`
`lacks such a teaching, but turned to Miller instead at Fig. 9c and col. 13 lines 16-
`
`21.
`
`Miller states the following at the cited passage in col. 13:
`
`Step 166 checks the result of running the symptom executable code
`to determine whether the solution for the entry should be applied. If
`this entry does not apply, the process proceeds to the next entry at
`step 171. Otherwise, step 167 loads and executes the solution
`executable code for the entry.
`
`This passage of Miller is provided in the context of attempting to resolve a
`
`problem a user is actually experiencing. The passage quoted above specifies
`
`that the code is executed to check for various symptoms, and based on the
`
`symptoms, a solution is selected to be run to fix the problem.
`
`In Miller, the
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 14 of 27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`workflow itself is not being checked for correctness (which is required by claim 1 ).
`
`Instead, the symptom code, which, in part, implements the workflow, is being run
`
`to identify the appropriate solution to implement.
`
`The passage of Miller provided above is entirely within the context of a
`
`workflow which has already been defined. The only thing being "checked" is the
`
`results of symptom executable code so that the appropriate solution can be
`
`implemented. Miller is substantially different than the invention of claim 1.
`
`Whereas Miller teaches running through a workflow to determine symptoms of a
`
`problem and then picking the appropriate solution, claim 1 is directed to defining
`
`the repair workflow before it is even used. That is, per claim 1, the workflow must
`
`first be defined before it can be used and claim 1 is directed to a method for
`
`defining the workflow.
`
`In Miller, the workflow has already been defined and it is
`
`being used to resolve a user's problem.
`
`For at least this reason, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and
`
`dependent claims 2-6. The Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 21 as
`
`well for much the same reason.
`2.
`Claim 5
`
`The Examiner rejected dependent claim 5 for an additional reason. Claim
`
`5 requires that checking the defined repair workflow for correctness includes one
`
`or more of the following:
`
`checking for exactly one start step;
`checking for the defining of transitions for outputs of the steps; and
`checking for defining of input binding for inputs of the steps.
`
`The Examiner concluded that Ahmad lacks a teaching of any of the above, and
`
`instead turned to Miller (at col. 13 lines 15-25) for allegedly teaching "checking for
`
`the defining of transitions for outputs of the steps." The passage cited by the
`
`Examiner
`
`is
`
`the same passage quoted above and repeated below for
`
`convenience.
`
`Step 166 checks the result of running the symptom executable code
`to determine whether the solution for the entry should be applied. If
`this entry does not apply, the process proceeds to the next entry at
`step 171. Otherwise, step 167 loads and executes the solution
`executable code for the entry.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 15 of 27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`There is simply no teaching or even a suggestion in this passage of checking to
`
`make sure the outputs of the steps are defined and thus no teaching of "checking
`
`for the defining of transitions for outputs of the steps."
`
`For this additional reason, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5.
`B.
`Obviousness rejection of claims 7, 11-16, 18-20, and 22-24
`1.
`Claims 7, 11-14,22, and 23
`
`Claim 7 is directed to a method for facilitating an IT organization in
`
`resolving IT incidents. The claimed method requires, among other limitations,
`
`that accessing the repair workflow repository includes "authenticating the one or
`
`more users." The Examiner concluded that Ahmad lacks such a teaching, and
`
`instead turned to Marvit at col. 27 lines 5-10.
`
`At the cited location, Marvit discloses that a server sets a registration
`
`cookie on the client computer and that the client computer "uniquely identify[ies]
`
`itself to the server as the one who received that particular cookie." Marvit thus
`
`discloses authenticating
`
`the client computer. Whereas, Marvit discloses
`
`authenticating a computer, claim 7 requires authenticating a user.
`
`For at least this reason, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 and
`
`dependent claim 11. The same or similar reasoning applies to claims 12-14, 22
`
`and 23 as well.
`2.
`
`Claims 15, 16, 18-20, and 24
`
`Claim 15 is directed to a method for resolving an IT incident. The claimed
`
`method includes, among other limitations, "binding one or more data values to the
`
`one or more inputs of one of the steps within the repair context." The Examiner
`
`concluded that Ahmad lacks such a teaching, and instead turned to Miller at col.
`
`15 lines 2-4. Those lines of Miller state that "[o]nce the solution code 206 has
`
`determined the correct values for the peripheral configuration, the necessary
`
`configuration data 208 is added." This statement does not at all teach or even
`
`suggest the "binding" of data values to the inputs of the steps within the repair
`
`context. Appellant's specification explains that "bindings define a mapping of
`
`data values to the inputs of an operation in the context of a step within a repair
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 16 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`workflow." Page 5 line 20. The quoted statement above from Miller does not
`
`teach such a binding.
`
`For at least this reason, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 and
`
`dependent claims 16 and 18-20. The same or similar reasoning applies to claim
`
`24 as well.
`Obviousness rejection of claim 10
`C.
`Claim 10 depends from base claim 7 which is allowable over Ahmad in
`
`view of Marvit as explained above. Armstrong does not satisfy the deficiencies of
`
`Ahmad and Marvit noted above. For at least this reason, the Examiner erred in
`
`rejecting claim 10.
`D.
`Obviousness rejection of claim 17
`Claim 17 depends from base claim 15 which is allowable over Ahmad in
`
`view of Miller as explained above. Adedeji does not satisfy the deficiencies of
`
`Ahmad and Miller noted above. For at least this reason, the Examiner erred in
`
`rejecting claim 17.
`E.
`Obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 9
`Claims 8 and 9 depend from base claim 7 which is allowable over Ahmad
`
`in view of Marvit as explained above. O'Brien does not satisfy the deficiencies of
`
`Ahmad and Marvit noted above. For at least this reason, the Examiner erred in
`
`rejecting claim 10.
`
`Claim 8 requires facilitating the IT organization in "naming and renaming
`
`the stored repair workflows." The Examiner concluded that Ahmad and Marvit
`
`lack such a teaching, but that O'Brien discloses the limitation. The Examiner
`
`noted that O'Brien teaches naming and renaming files on a storage device (Office
`
`Action p. 21) and that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to
`
`modify the combination of Ahmad and Marvit to provide for naming and renaming
`
`stored repair workflows. The Examiner alleged that such a modification would
`
`have been obvious "because it provides a very quick and easy means by which
`
`such user requests can be satisfied."
`
`Appellant disagrees. There is no evidence in the record that a user would
`
`have wanted to have had naming and renaming functionality in the inventions of
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 17 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`Ahmad and Marvit. Absent Appellant's contribution, which is off limits, the
`
`Examiner's conclusion is not based on any objective evidence. For this additional
`
`reason, the rejection of claim 8 is in error.
`
`The same reasoning regarding the lack of objective evidence to support
`
`the purported modification applies to claim 9 as well.
`F.
`Conclusion
`
`For the reasons stated above, Appellant respectfully submits that the
`
`Examiner erred in rejecting all pending claims.
`
`It is believed that no extensions
`
`of time or fees are required, beyond those that may otherwise be provided for in
`
`documents accompanying this paper. However, in the event that additional
`
`extensions of time are necessary to allow consideration of this paper, such
`
`extensions are hereby petitioned under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a), and any fees
`required (including fees for net addition of claims) are hereby authorized to be
`
`charged to Hewlett-Packard Development Company's Deposit Account No. 08-
`
`2025.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Jonathan M. Harris/
`
`Jonathan M. Harris
`PTO Reg. No. 44,144
`CONLEY ROSE, P.C.
`(713) 238-8000 (Phone)
`(713) 238-8008 (Fax)
`ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
`Intellectual Property Administration
`Legal Dept., M/S 35
`P.O. Box 272400
`Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 18 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`VIII. CLAIMS APPENDIX
`
`1.
`
`(Previously presented) A computer implemented method for facilitating a
`
`user in defining a repair workflow for subsequent use in resolving information
`
`technology (IT) incidents, comprising:
`
`facilitating the user in defining a plurality of steps of the repair workflow
`
`using a computing device, including inputs, processing logics, and outputs of
`
`the steps;
`
`facilitating the user in defining a plurality of transitions between the steps,
`
`based at least in part on the outputs of the steps, using a computing device; and
`
`checking the defined repair workflow for correctness before being used to
`
`resolve an IT incident using a computing device.
`
`2.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein said facilitating of the user in
`
`defining a plurality of steps comprises facilitating the user in selecting and/or
`
`defining a plurality of operations for the steps, and defining inputs and/or
`
`outputs of the operations.
`
`3.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 2, wherein said defining of a plurality of
`
`operations comprises attaching to the steps, a plurality of sets of executable
`
`code implementing the operations defined by the user.
`
`4.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein said facilitating of the user in
`
`defining a plurality of transitions between the steps comprises attaching to the
`
`transitions, a plurality of sets of parsing code for processing the outputs.
`
`5.
`
`(Previously presented) The method of claim 1, wherein checking the
`
`defined repair workflow for correctness includes one or more of
`
`checking for exactly one start step;
`
`checking for the defining of transitions for outputs of the steps; and
`
`checking for defining of input binding for inputs of the steps.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 19 of 27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`6.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein said facilitating of the user in
`
`defining a plurality of transitions between the steps comprises attaching to the
`
`steps, a plurality of sets of executable code for processing the outputs.
`
`7.
`
`(Previously presented) A computer implemented method for facilitating
`
`an information technology (IT) organization in resolving IT incidents, comprising:
`
`facilitating one or more users of the IT organization in defining a plurality
`
`of repair workflows for resolving
`
`IT incidents, including facilitating the IT
`
`organizations in defining inputs, processing logics, and outputs of the steps of
`
`the workflow, using one or more computing devices;
`
`facilitating one or more users of the IT organization in storing the defined
`
`repair workflows in a repair workflow repository; and
`
`facilitating one or more users of the IT organization in accessing the
`
`repair workflow repository to selectively access and invoke the repair workflows
`
`to resolve IT incidents, accessing the repair workflow repository comprises
`
`authenticating the one or more users.
`
`8.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 7, wherein said facilitating of the one or
`
`more users of the IT organization in storing the defined workflows comprising
`
`facilitating the IT organization
`
`in naming and renaming the stored repair
`
`workflows.
`
`9.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 7, further comprising facilitating one or
`
`more users of the IT organization in deleting a stored repair workflow.
`
`10.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 7, wherein said facilitating of the one or
`
`more users of the IT organization in storing the defined repair workflows
`
`comprising facilitating the IT organization in creating a hierarchy of folders, and
`
`facilitating the IT organization in storing the defined repair workflows in the
`
`folders.
`
`280083.01/2162.92400
`
`Page 20 of27
`
`HP PDNO 200800937-1
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 11/327,745
`Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2009
`Reply to final Office action of January 22, 2009
`
`11.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 7, wherein said facilitating of the IT
`
`organization in accessing the repair workflow repository and invoking the repair
`
`workflows comprises facilitating the IT organization in searching for one or more
`
`of repair workflows associated with a repair type, repair workflows associated
`
`with repairing infrastructural element(s), and repair workflows to repair particular
`
`operations.
`
`12.
`
`(Previously presented) A computer implemented method for facilitating
`
`an information technology (IT) organization in resolving IT incidents, comprising:
`
`facilitating discovery of repair actions stored on a computing server, each
`
`of the repair actions comprises executable code adapted to perform one or
`
`more operations in a repair to resolve an IT incident; and
`
`facilitating a client device coupled with
`
`the computing server,
`
`authenticating a user of the client device, executing a repair workflow in
`
`discovering the repair actions, and selectively invoking the repair actions to
`
`perform operations for the repair workflow.
`
`13.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 12 further comprising creating a container
`
`having the plurality of repair actions, and storing the container on the computing
`
`server.
`
`14.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 13 further comprising facilitating a client
`
`device in adding a repair action to the container.
`
`15.
`
`(Original) A computer implemented method for resolving an information
`
`technology (IT) incident, comprising:
`
`loading a repair workflow having a plurality of steps and transitions
`
`between the steps, defined to repair the IT incident on a computing device,
`
`each of the steps having one o