Docket No . BMC530/4-002
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`THE UNTTED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFTCE
`
`\
`•,
`
`In reApplication of: Bonnell et al.
`
`Serial No.:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`Examiner:
`
`Title:
`
`08/316,034
`
`September 30, 1994
`
`2317
`
`Chen, D.
`
`Method and Apparatus for Managing a Computer
`
`Network
`
`this
`lhal
`ce•lify
`hen•loy
`rorrespoudcncr i~ heing ~eposilrd
`•,1 1lh Llw ll111lt:d Slnl.es l'osl.al Service
`
`Honorable Commissioner of
`
`Patent ami Trademark:;
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`20231
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`001
`
`

`

`Docket No. BMCS3 0 /4- 0 02
`
`2
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`AMENDMENT UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.115
`
`In response to the Official Action mailed March 21, 1996, Applicants
`
`respectfully request the Examiner to reconsider the rejection of the claims in view of
`
`the following amendments thereto, and the comments as set forth below. Please
`
`amend the Application as follows.
`
`/
`JKIHE..IIT.LE
`,/
`Delete the previous title and insert therefore "--SYSTEM FOR MANAGING
`
`COMPUTER RESOURCES ACROSS A DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING
`
`ENVI RONMENT--".
`
`IN THE SI''IFlCATION
`
`./
`
`Delete the word "discovery" and inse11 therefore "--monitoring--" in line 3 of
`
`page 1 S of the specification.
`
`IN THE DRAWINGS
`
`Please amend the drawing showing step 142 in figure 9 to indicate that a
`
`"monitoring" procedure should be executed instead of a "discovery" procedure. A
`
`substitute drawing is attached with the drawing correction marked in red ink pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 1.123 and MPEP rule 608.02(p) and (v).
`
`IN THE CLAIMS
`./
`Please add the following claims:
`
`-- 9. A method of monitoring u computer network that includes a network
`
`management computer system and a server computer system, comprising the steps of:
`
`(a) reading, from a storage device coupled to the server computer system,
`
`duscovery information about how to determine whether a resource is present on the
`
`server computer system;
`
`(b) finding, on the storage device, instrllctions that are referred to in the
`
`discovery information, that are written in an interpretable high-level computer
`
`h
`. ' '
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`002
`
`

`

`(}I
`
`Docket No. BI~C53 0/4 -002
`
`3
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`programming language, and that arc stored on the storage device in their uninterpreted
`
`form;
`
`(c) interpreting the instructions for the purpose of collecting data for use in
`
`determining whether the resource is present on the server computer system;
`
`(d) determining, responsive to the collected data, whether the resource is
`
`present on the server computer system;
`
`{e) responsive to the detem1ination of step (d), sending a first transmission
`
`from the server computer system to the network management computer system, said
`
`first transmission containing information about the resource;
`
`(f) receiving a second transmission from the network management computer
`
`system to the server computer system, said second transmission containing
`
`information for monitoring or managing the resource; and
`
`{g) gathering information about the resource responsive to the information
`
`contained in said second transmission.--
`
`-- I 0. The method of Claim 9 further including the steps of:
`
`(h) determining, responsive to a stored threshold and to information gathered
`
`in step (f), whether an event has occurred; and
`
`(i) sending a third transmission from the server computer system to the
`
`network management computer system, said third transmission containing
`
`information about said event.--
`
`-- II . The method of Claim I 0 further including the step of executing recovery
`
`actions responsive to said event detected in step (h).--
`
`-- 12. The method of Claim 11 wherein said recovery actions are specified by
`
`information contained in said second transmission.--
`
`-- 13. The method of Claim II wherein said recovery actions are specified by
`
`information stored on the server computer system.--
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`003
`
`

`

`Docket No. EMC530/4 - 002
`
`4
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`--14. The method of Claim II wherein said recovery actions are comprised of
`
`ins tructions written in an interpretable high-level computer programming language.--
`
`REMARKS
`
`This Application has been carefully reviewed in light of the Official Action
`
`mailed March 2 I, 1996. The title, s pecitication, and drawings have been amended in
`
`this Application. Additionally, Claims 9 through 14 have been added. Applicants
`
`respectfully request reconsideration of and favorable action on the rejected and new
`
`claims in this Application.
`
`The Title Chanees
`
`The Examiner has suggested that the title be changed to more clearly indicate
`
`the invention to which the claims are directed.
`
`Pursuant to the suggestion of the Examiner, the title has been changed to more
`
`clearly state t11e object of the present invention.
`
`The Drawinc Chances
`
`The drawings have been amended to make a correction to step 142 of figure 9.
`
`The description of step 142 of figure 9 should indicate that a "monitoring" procedure
`
`should be executed instead of a "discovery" procedure. This change is necessary to
`
`correct a mistake in the drawings and does not introduce new matter to this
`
`Application. The mistake in the drawing is made readily apparent when the
`
`descriptions of steps 142 and J 44 of figure 9 are compared to the descriptions of steps
`
`I I 6 and I I 8 of figure 8. Figure 8 depicts the "discovery" procedure, and figure 9
`
`depicLc; the "monitoring" procedure.
`
`A substitute drawing is attached with the drawing correction marked in red ink
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § I .1 23 and MPEP rule 608.02(p) and (v).
`
`The Specification ChanfleS
`
`The specification has bt:en amt:nded to renect the correction to figure 9.
`
`I
`I
`I
`I
`l
`I
`\
`\
`
`\
`I .
`
`I
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`004
`
`

`

`Docket No. a~C530/4-002
`
`5
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`The New Claims
`
`Claims 9 through 14 have been added to further describe the inventive
`
`concept. Support for Claim 9 is found in the specification on page 14, lines 16-21 and
`
`page 15, lines 1-23. Support for Claim I 0 is found in the specification on page 15,
`
`lines 21-23 and page 16, lines I· 7. Support for Claim I I is found in the specification
`
`on page 16, lines 1-7. Support for Claim 12 is found in the specification on page 14,
`
`lines 19-21. Support for Claim 13 is found in the specification on page 16, lines 2-5
`
`and lines I 0-12. Support for Claim 14 is found in the specification on page 16, lines
`
`8-9 and lines 17-23.
`
`RESPONSE TO THE REJECTIONS
`
`I. The First Rejection
`
`Claim I has been rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Bauer et al. (5,367.635). The Examiner specifically found that Bauer
`
`teaches a method of determining whetl1er a resource is present on a computer system
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`(a) reading, from a storage device coupled to a computer system, discovery
`
`information (objects in configuration file 208 or fig. 2) about how to determine
`
`whether the resource is present on the computer system (col.4 lines 37-39; co1.2 lines
`
`42-50; col.? line 7);
`
`(b) finding, on the storage device, instructions that are referred to in the
`
`discovery information, that are written in an interpretable high-level computer
`
`programming language, and that are stored in their uninterpreted form (col.7 lines 8-
`
`11 );
`
`(c) interpreting the instructions for tile purpose of collecting data for use in
`
`determining whether the resource is present on the computer system (col.8 lines 1-4);
`and
`
`(d) determining, responsive to the collected data, whether the resource is
`
`present on the computer system (coi.S lines 18-21 )."
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`005
`
`

`

`Docket No. B~IC530/4.-002
`
`6
`
`~ATENT A~~LICATION
`
`Response to the First Rejection
`
`For the reasons set forth below, Applicants respectfully travers~ the
`
`Examiner's rejection because the Bauer reference does not teach the present invention.
`
`A close reading of the Bauer reference reveals that it is directed to a method in
`which "network management objects" may be lllkkl:l. to a network management agent
`
`system. (e.g. see col. 3, lines 46-48; col. 4, lines 23-26; and col. 6, lines 26-28).
`
`In contrast, the present invention is directed to the discovery, monitoring, and
`
`manajlement of computer system resources and applications across a distributed
`
`computing environment, and the Rauer reference is directed only to adding "network
`
`management object-;" to an agent system.
`
`Claim I of the presem invemion is directed to djscovcrjn~ or dcteunininc
`
`whether a computer resource or application is present on a computer system. The
`
`Examiner specifically found that Bauer teaches a method of detennining whether a
`
`resource is present on a computer system comprising the step of"(a) reading, from a
`
`storage device coupled to a computer system, discovery information (objects in
`
`confi guration file 208 of Fig. 2) about how to determine whether the resource is
`
`present on the computer system (col.4 lines 37-39; col.2 lines 42-50; col.7 line 7)."
`
`A close examination of the Bauer reference indicates that it does not read
`
`"discovery information'' about how to determine whether a computer resource is
`
`present on the computer system. The Dauer reference reads a "configuration tile"
`
`which contains a s~::quence of numbers, called an "object identifier" (see col.S, lines 3-
`
`5), and information pointing to software routines (i.e. names and paths) which may be
`
`used to request data from the "object." (e.g. see col. S, lines 10-13; and col. 6, lines 3-
`
`6). The "configuration file" ~contain "discovery information" about how to
`
`determine whether a computer resource is present on the computer system, but only
`
`contains information about "objects" already present on the system. TI1e Dauer
`
`relere nce does not discover the presence or a resource or application on a computer
`
`system, but only assumes that the "object" is already press:m on the computer system.
`
`In contrast, Claim I of the present invention includes the step of reading
`
`"discovery information" about how to discover or determine whether a resource is
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`006
`
`

`

`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`7
`
`PATRNT APPLI CATION
`
`present on the computer system. The present invention uses this information to
`
`interrogate the computer system to determine wheiher a computer resource or
`
`application is actually present on the computer system. Unlike the present invention,
`
`the Bauer reference does not read information about how to determine whether a
`
`computer resource is present on the computer system, but~ reads information from
`
`its "configuration file" about "objects" that are assumed or known to be present on the
`
`system. Thus, Bauer does not teach step (a) of Claim I, and therefore does not
`
`anticipate the present invention.
`
`The Examiner also found that the Bauer reference teaches a method of
`
`determining whether a resource is present 011 a computer sysLem compri::;ing the :step
`
`of "(b) finding, on the storage device, instructions that are referred to in the discovery
`
`infom1ation, that are written in an interpretable high-level computer programming
`
`language, and that are stored in their uninterpreted form (col.7 lines 8-l l )."
`
`As discussed above, a close reading of the Bauer reference indicates that it is
`
`.!121 directed to discoverin2 or determining whether computer resources or applications
`
`are present on the computer system, but is~ directed to adding "network
`
`management objects" to an agent system. Moreover, the information contained in the
`
`''configuration file" disclosed in the Bauer reference contains information (i.e.
`
`procedure names and paths) pointing to executable programs used to obtain data for a
`
`particular "object" in the configuration file. (e.g . see col. 5, lines 10-13, lines 37-42;
`
`lines 61 -68; col.6 lines 1-2). The programs identified in the "configuration file" are
`
`executable files. These executable files are IlQ1 written in an interpretable high-level
`
`computer programming language as is provided for in the present invention.
`
`Additionally, the programs identified in the Bauer "configuration file" are not stored
`
`in their uninterpretable form, as is required in step (b) of Claim I of the present
`
`invention.
`
`The Examiner implies that the "reconfigure" command used in the Bauer
`
`reference teaches the step of finding instructions that are referred to in the "discovery
`
`information" that are written in a interpretable language and stored in an
`
`uninterpretable form. Applicants respectfully traverse the Examiner's implication. The
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`007
`
`

`

`Docket NO. BMC5 30 / 4-002
`
`8
`
`PA1'EN1' APPLICATION
`
`"reconfigure" command disclosed in the Bauer reference merely reads the textual
`
`information from the "configuration file" identifying the software routine for a
`
`particular "object" and appends the text to the agent's collection of objects. (e.g. see
`
`col. 5, lines 37-68; and col. 6, lines l-2,1ines 10-26). This "appending" ofthe textual
`
`information is not a compilation, but is only a copying of textual information from
`
`one file (the "configuration file") to another file (management object database). (e.g.
`
`see col. 4, lines 45-53).
`
`Step (b) of Claim I of the present invention requires that the instructions
`
`referred to in the "discovery information" be written in an interpretable high-level
`
`computer programming language and he stored in their uninterpreted form. The
`
`requirement of interpretable instructions, which require some compilation during
`
`execution, in the present invention is directly contrary to direction of the Bauer
`
`reference. The Bauer reference states that it is directed to the capability of adding
`
`"objects" to an agent system without having to write code in a programming language
`
`requiring compilation. (see col. 2, lines 3-6).
`
`Use of a high-level interpretable computer programming language in the
`
`present invention provides the benefit of allowing the network manager to customize
`
`the network management system to meet their system management needs. In the
`
`present invention, the "discovery information" contains references to "script
`
`programs" used to search for the computer resources or applications on the computer
`
`system. (see specification p.l 0, lines 7-9). These script programs are written in a high(cid:173)
`
`level interpretable computer programming language and stored in their uninterpreted
`
`form. One of the benefits obtained by using script language programs of the present
`
`invention is that script programs are capable of being interpreted more quickly than
`
`languages that must be interpreted from ASCII text. (see specification p.ll, lines 11-
`
`24).
`
`The Bauer reference d.M.UlQ! teach the ll!se of an interpretable high-level
`
`computer programming language. Therefore, the invention disclosed in the Bauer
`
`reference does not teach the step of finding instructions that are (1) written in an
`
`interpretable high-level computer programming language, and (2) stored in their
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`008
`
`

`

`Docket No. BMC530/4-0~2
`
`9
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`uninterpreted form. Thus, the Dauer reference does not teach step (b) of C laim I, and
`
`therefore does not anticipate the present invention.·
`
`The Examiner further found that the Rauer reference teaches a method of
`
`determining whether a resource is present on a computer system comprising the step
`
`of "(c) interpreting the instructions for the purpose of collecting data for use in
`
`determining whether the resource is present on the compmer system (col.8 lines 1-4)."
`
`The Bauer reference does not teach the use of an interpretable high-level
`
`computer programming language for the purpose of collecting data for use in
`
`determining whether a computer resource or application is present on the computer
`system. As discussed above. the Bauer reference is directed wfu to the addition of
`"objects" to an agent system object database. Unlike the present invention, the Bauer
`
`reference does not teach a method of discoyedn~: or determinin~: whether a resource is
`present on a computer system, ruu: does Bauer use instructions written in an
`
`interpretable high-level computer programming language. Thus, the Bauer reference
`
`does not teach step (c) of Claim I of the present invention, and therefore, does not
`
`anticipate the present invention.
`
`The Examiner fi.1rther found that the Bauer reference teaches a method of
`
`determining whether a resource is present on a computer system comprising the step
`
`of "(d) determining, responsive to the collected d:tta, whether the resource is present
`
`on the computer system (co1.5 lines 18-21 )."
`
`However, the invention described in the Bauer reference only obtains
`
`information from an "object" that is already present on the computer system. The
`
`example illustrated in the Bauer reference, and cited by the Examiner, is a clear
`
`illustration of this aspect. In Bauer, a request for information is received from the
`
`network management system through a SNMP GET or GET-NEXT request for
`
`information about a particular "object" already presenl on the computer system. Bauer
`
`also describes a request to obtain info rmation or change information concerning the
`
`status of a printer connected to the computer system. (see col. 5, lines 7-21). Inherent
`
`in the Bauer reference is that the "object" is already present on the computer system.
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`009
`
`

`

`Docket No . BMC530/4-002
`
`10
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`The Dauer reference does not teach the method of dj scoyerin~: or determjnjn~ whether
`
`a computer resource or application is actually present on the computer system, Bauer
`
`~obtains infonnation about "objects" that it is told are already present on the
`
`computer system by the "configuration file." Whereas, the present invention claims a
`
`method of discovering or determinin~ whether a computer resource or application is
`
`present on the computer system.
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, the Rauer reference does not teach the method of
`
`Claim I. Thus, Claim I is not anticipated by the Bauer reference, and is therefore
`
`patentable over the Bauer reference.
`
`II. The Second Rejection
`
`Claim 2 has been rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Bauer et al. (5,367,635). The Examiner found that Dauer teaches the
`
`method of Claim I of determining whether a resource is present on a computer
`
`S)'Stem. The Examiner further found that the Bauer reference "teaches all the steps in
`
`claim I are performed by a software system (agent software) stored in the computer
`
`system and executing thereon (col. 6, lines 57-62)."
`
`Response to the Second Rejection
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse the Examiner's rejection because the Bauer
`
`refe rence does not teach the present invention.
`
`As indicated in the foregoing analysis, Claim I is an allowable claim because
`
`it is not anticipated by the Bauer reference. As a result, dependent Claim 2 is an
`
`allowable claim because it is dependent upon an allowable independent claim.
`
`Moreover, a close reading of the Bauer reference indicates that the invention
`
`disclosed is directed to a software system resident on two computer systems, a
`
`"managing computer system" and a "managed computer system" which also
`
`communicate between each other through a computer network. (see col. 6, lines 54-
`
`62; col. 7, lines 3-7; and coL 8, lines 5-7).
`
`In contrast, Claim 2 of the present invention is directed to a software system
`
`ston:d and executing on only one computer system. The Dauer reference does not
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`010
`
`

`

`Docket No. BMC5 30/4- 0 02
`
`11
`
`PA•I •BN'f Al'l'LICATION
`
`teach all the steps of the invention of Claim I performed by a software system stored
`
`and executed in one computer system. Thus, the Bauer reference does not teach the
`
`invention of Claim 2, and therefore does not anticipate Claim 2. Accordingly, Claim 2
`
`is patentable over the Bauer reference.
`
`TIT. The Third Rejection
`
`Claim 3 has been rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § !02(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Dauer et al. (5,367,635). The Examiner found that Bauer teaches the
`
`method of Claim 2 of determining whether a resource is present on a computer
`
`system. The Examiner further found that the Bauer reference "teaches said software
`
`system is stored in the computer system in a form directly executable by the computer
`
`system without interpretation or compilation. (col. 6, lines 1 0-17)."
`
`Response to the Third Rejection
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse the Examiner's rejection because the Bauer
`
`reference does not teach the steps of the present invention.
`
`As discussed in the above analysis for Claim I, the Bauer reference does not
`
`teach the steps of the claimed method of discoyerinl: or determinin~ whether a
`
`computer resource or application is present on a computer system. Thus, independent
`
`Claim I is not anticipated by the Bauer reference, and is therefore patentable over
`
`Bauer. Accordingly, Claim 3 is patentable because it is dependent upon patentable
`
`Claim 1.
`
`IV. The Fourth Rejection
`
`The Examiner rejected Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § I 03 as being unpatentable
`
`over Bauer eta!. as applied to claims 1-3, and further in view ofWrabetz et al.
`
`(5,442,791).
`
`Particularly, the Examiner states that the Bauer reference "discloses the
`
`claimed invention except tor the automatic execution of resource monitoring steps
`
`according to a time schedule." The Examiner further states that the Wrabetz reference
`
`"teaches that it is kno\¥11 to automatically perform resource monitoring periodically."
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`011
`
`

`

`VOcke~ NO. BMCSJ0/4-007.
`
`12
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time the invention was made to add the automatic resource monitoring
`
`feature, as disclosed! in the Wrabetz reference, in order to make sure system resource
`
`statistics arc updated on a timt:ly basis.
`
`Response to the Fourth Rejection
`
`For the reasons set forth above and explained below, Applicants respectfully
`
`traverse the Examiner's rejection because the Bauer reference and the Wrabetz
`
`reference do not teach the steps of the claimed invention.
`
`As discussed above , a close reading of the Bauer reference indicates that it is
`nru directed to the discovery rnonitodn~ and mana2ement of computer resources a nd
`applications present on a computer system. Unlike the present invention, the Bauer
`reference is Q1ll:l directed to the lli'1diilim of "network management objects," related to
`
`computer resources already present on the computer system, to a network
`
`rnanagemenl agent sofiware system. (e.g. see col. 3, lines 46-48; col. 4, lines 23-26;
`
`and col. 6, Jines 26-28). The above referenced analysis of the Bauer reference shows
`
`that the Bauer reference does not teach the steps of the claimed invention.
`
`Additionally, a close reading of the Wrabetz reference indicates that it is
`
`directed to the periodic monitorin~; of resources already present and "predefined" on a
`
`computer system. (e.g. see col. IS, lines 38-44). Whereas, the present invention is
`
`directed to the method of discoyerin~ or determinin~ whether a computer resource or
`
`application is present on computer system according to an automated time schedule.
`
`Thus, the Wrabetz reference is llil1 directed to the periodic discovery of whether
`
`computer resources or applications are present on a computer system.
`
`Contrary to the Examiner's finding, Applicants rcspectfi.tll.y submit that the
`
`Rauer reference does not teach the steps of the claimed method of d jscoyerins or
`
`dctcrmininc whether a computer resource or application is present on a computer
`
`system, and that the Wrabetz reference does not teach the step of periodically
`
`djscoycrine or detenninin~ whether a resource or :tpplication is present according to a
`
`time schedule. Thus, the Examiner's rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over the Bauer reference and further in view of the Wrabetz
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`012
`
`

`

`Docket No. BI~C530/4 - 002
`
`13
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`reference is incorrect. Applicants respectfully submit that Claim 4 is not obvious in
`
`light of the Bauer and Wrabetz references, and is therefore an allowable claim.
`
`V. Jhe Fifth Rejection
`The Examiner rejected Claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Bauer et al. in view of Wrabetz et al. and Wanderer et al. patent no.
`
`5,491,796.
`
`Response to the Fifth Rejection
`
`For the reasons setforth above and explained below, Applicants respectfully
`
`traverse the Examiner's rejection because the Dauer reference, the Wrabetz reference,
`
`and the Wanderer references do not teach the steps of the claimed invention .
`
`.c.J..illinj_
`
`In rejecting Claim 5, the Examiner found that the Bauer reference teaches the
`
`claimed method of detem1ining whether a resource is present on a computer system.
`
`The Examiner further found that the Wanderer reference teaches the steps of ( l)
`
`sending a transmission from the server computer system to the network management
`
`computer system, and (2) displaying, at U1e site of the network marnagcmcnt computer
`
`system and responsive to the transmission, an indication of whether the resource is
`
`present on the server computer system (col.2, lines 55-63 and col. 56, lines 15-37).
`
`The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made to display the network resource data
`
`collected, as taught by the Wanderer reference, in order to provide the system user a
`
`way to directly view current network resource data.
`
`It is noted that the Examiner cited the Wrabct7. reference in the rejection of
`
`Claim 5. (see Office Action 13). However, the Examiner did not provide any
`
`indication or information as to how the Wrabctz reference teaches any of the steps of
`
`Claim 5. The Wrabetz reference is directed to the periodic monitoring of resources
`
`already present and "predefined" on a computer system. (e.g. see col. IS, lines 38-44).
`
`The method of Claim 5 does not include the step of periodic monitoring of computer
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`013
`
`

`

`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`14
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`resources. Additionally, the Wrabetz reference does not teach any of the steps of the
`
`claimed invention of Claim 5.
`
`As discussed in the above analysis of Claim "), the Bauer reference does not
`
`teach the steps of the claimed method of discoycrin~: or dctcrminin~: whether a
`
`computer resource or application is present on a computer system. Hence, the Bauer
`
`reference does not teach steps (a)-(d) of the claim.ed invention of Claim 5.
`
`For at least these reasons, Applicants respectfully submit that the combined
`
`teachings of Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer tall tar short of the requirements of Claim
`
`5. Considering this lack of teaching, Applicants respectfully submit that Claim 5 is
`
`patentable over the Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer references.
`
`CWm..2
`In rejecting Claim 6, the Examiner found the Oaucr, Wrabetz, and Wandovr~r
`
`references teach the claimed method of monitoring a computer network.
`
`Claim 6 is dependent upon independent C laim 5. for the reasons set forth
`
`above for Claim 5, Applicants respectfully submit that Claim 6 is a:Jso allowable over
`
`the combination of the Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer references.
`
`In rejecting Claim 7, the Examiner found the Bauer, Wrahetz, and Wanderer
`
`references teach the claimed method of monitoring a computer network.
`
`Claim 7 is dependent upon dependent Claim 6. For the reasons set forth above
`
`for Claim 6, Applicants respectfully submit that Claim 7 is also allowable over the
`
`combination of the Bauer, Wrabelz, and Wanderer references.
`
`~
`
`In reje.cting Claim 8, the Examiner found the Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer
`
`references teach the claimed method of monitoring a computer network. The
`
`Examiner further found that the Bauer reference "teaches the agent system employing
`
`a ltigh-levei interpretable l<mguage (Unix shell command, col. 5. lines 67-68; and
`
`col.6, lines I -2)."
`
`Claim 8 is dependent upon dependent Claim 6. For the reasons set forth above
`
`for Claim 6, Applicants respectfully submit that Claim 8 is also allowable over the
`
`combination of the Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer references.
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`014
`
`

`

`Docket No. BMC530/4 - 002
`
`15
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`Additionally, a close reading of the Bauer reference indicates that it may
`
`utilize Unix software operating system shell commands to initiate software routines
`used to Illillli1ill: "objects" on the agent system. (e.g. see col. 5, lines 61-68; and col. 6,
`line:; 1-2). The Exami ncr found that Unix :;hell~.:.ommands are a higl1-levcl
`
`interpretable language. However, Unix shell commru1ds arc merely software operating
`
`system commands used to initiate the exectJtion of operating system functions or user
`
`specified programs. In the Bauer reference, the Unix shell commands are executed
`
`external to the operation of the agent software system.
`
`Claim 8 of the present invention is directed to the use of script programs
`
`written in an interpretable high-level computer programming language. (see
`
`specification p.ll, lines 11-19; and p.12, lines 1-1 0). The script programs are software
`
`procedures used to collect information pertaining to a computer resource or
`
`application on the computer system (see specification p. 14, lines 7-13 and 22-24, and
`
`p. 15, lines 15-22).
`
`The Bauer reference onlv teaches the use of external software operating
`
`system level commands. Unlike the present invention, the invention disclosed in the
`
`Bauer reference does .!ill.t teach the use of an interpretable high-level computer
`
`programming language.
`
`For at least these reasons, the combined teachings of Bauer, Wrabetz, and
`
`Wanderer fall far short of the requirements of Claim 8. Considering this lack of
`teaching, Applicants respectfully submit that Claim 8 is patentable over the Bauer,
`
`Wrahetz, and Wanderer references.
`
`In addition, the prior art contains no suggestion to modify the respective
`
`teachings of Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer references so as to reach the requirements
`
`of claims 5-8. Absent such suggestion, Applicants respectfully submits that any such
`
`modification would necessarily be based on the improper hindsight application of
`
`Appli~.:ant's own lt:achings. See In re Laskuwski, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1397, 1398, (Fed.Cir.
`
`1989). For this additional reason, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 5-8 arc
`
`patentable over the Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer references.
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`015
`
`

`

`Docket No. BMC530/ 4 · 002
`
`16
`
`PATENT APPLI CATI ON
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Applicants have now made an earnest attempt to place this case in condition
`
`for allowance. For the foregoing reasons and for other reasons clearly apparent,
`
`Applicants respectfully request full allowance of all claims
`
`An extension of three (3) months is requested and a Petition for Extension of
`
`Time Under 37 C.F .R . § 1.136 with the appropriate fee is attached hereto.
`
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fees or credit any
`
`overpayment to Deposit Account No. 22-0365 of Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
`
`{l~;;tLc
`
`Ala• R. Thiele
`
`Reg . No. 30,694
`
`2500 First City Tower
`
`1001 Fannin
`
`Houston, Texas 77002-6760
`
`(713) 758-2065
`
`September 19, 1996
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`016
`
`

`

`•. · ..
`.. \
`
`; ·I
`. /
`••• " .•• .r
`
`r- :-
`
`-
`
`4
`I <..
`
`"A,:.f
`~(" ;nJ:,.i:; . --;
`' F "t · ' ' ~roc•J•«. shooiJ 1
`... - - --
`b ~u.u{{A
`\
`- -~ - ...
`
`:
`
`-
`
`\
`
`t-- ---- --- --
`~~
`'<r"'l---..I~U : ~~. .
`1 !>,....J.., ~;..,,
`{w ; ... ,~l.tz 1 "'-I+{
`1~ (1)ce.J<>C'(.
`;
`'
`I"'Oo<liro.-illl ,
`-----
`'
`- --··
`....
`
`M<l~ ITO~\N~
`
`"'~~~+'., i <n 'l•e u t s.......J; j<lo->t>
`Co"""'wol "!.l<'l'.:u+i~ .,...,...,_1')( (
`
`-I.>C.fC.IJ~,.... "'~'l'..r A .... ~Mi~
`co .... ..-.....!
`+'h~~ ~ol. ,.., ~ ~~~ ("o"'U 4 <"'O.,..; ~;"'"'
`,...J. ~'!A~~ l'~!o'>'t~ ;4
`,). N. <!.!)-l.t'(A.
`-'<> ?~ ... -..iw- ~ ~-Q.{.o~ At.\-\o.....
`m...,.._ ~"'w.{"
`
`~~ .. ...e~ Ni e('c~., ~);~ ~~
`Ju.;4~<, •. 'JJ, iO\:> a. 5cr;~+ tw..,u.~.,'t t.,...~J
`'trl)-\-;""\ .s.,~~
`~~'E- rr( ~ 0
`~w..~
`~ '>
`
`___ __ __ _ __ .:,_..-J \
`
`no
`
`F=iq. 4
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`017
`
`