PATENT APPLICATION z
`
`I d
`
`.
`
`Docket NO. BMC530/4-002
`
`).'
`
`1
`
`IN THE UMTED STATES PATENT AND TRADE-
`
`OFFICE
`
`*f
`
`a
`
`'
`
`,
`
` I
`
`0
`
`.\ f '.I<
`4
`\,J
`
`In re Application of: Bonnell et al.
`Serial No.:
`0813 16,034
`Filing Date:
`September 30,1994
`Group Art Unit:
`2317
`Examiner:
`Chen, D.
`Method and Apparatus for Managing a Computer
`Title:
`Network
`
`Y
`
`i*i
`LI*. 'cL;iijiicD
`UCI U 2 IYY6,
`G8CtlP 2380
`
`this
`that
`certify
`hereby
`1
`correspondence is being deposited
`with the Uniled Slates Poslal Service
` IS first class mail in an envelope
`to: Commissioner
`of
`addressed
`Patents
`and
`Trademarks,
`
`Dne of Signature
`
`Honorable Commissioner of
`Patent and Trademarks
`2023 1
`Washington, D.C.
`
`--
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`1
`
`

`
`.
`
`Docket NO. BMC530/4-002
`
`..V
`
`2
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`AMENDMENT UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.115
`
`In response to the Official Action mailed March 21,1996, Applicants
`respectfirlly 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.
`
`S
`
`IN3mcmu
`J
`Delete the
`COMPUTER
`ENVIRONMENT --'I.
`
`\
`
`J
`insert therefore 'I-- SYSTEM FOR MANAGING
`A DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING
`
`page 15 of the specification. -
`
`J
`very" and insert therefore "--monitoring--" in line 3 of
`
`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. 5 1.123 and MPEP rule 608.02(p) and (v).
`
`\
`
`-
`
`Please add the following claims: --
`-- 9.
`A method of monitoring a computer network that includes a network
`management computer system and a server computer system, comprising the steps of:
`(a) reading, iiom a storage device coupled to the server computer system,
`discovery information about how to determine whether a resource is present on the
`server compitter system;
`(b) finding, on the storage device, instructions that are referred to in the
`discovery information, that are written in an interpretable high-level computer
`
`1
`
`. ,
`
`2
`
`

`
`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`3
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`programming language, and that are 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 determination of step (d), sending a first trmmission
`from the server computer system to the network management computer system, said
`first transmission containing information about the resource;
`(f) receiving a second transmission fiom 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.--
`
`-- 10, 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 fiom the server computer system to the
`network management computer system, said third transmission containing
`information about said event.--
`-- 1 1. The method of Claim 10 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 aethod of Claim 1 1 wherein said recovery actions are specified by
`information stored on the server computer system.--
`
`.
`
`> ,%-.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`I...
`
`4
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`The method of Claim 1 1 wherein said recovery actions are comprised of
`-1 4.
`instructions written in an interpretable high-level computer programming language.--
`
`REMARKS
`This Application has been carellly reviewed in light of the Ofllcial Action
`mailed March 21,1996, The title, specification, 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 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 the object of the present invention.
`
`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 "discoveryf' 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 144 of figure 9 are compared to the descriptions of steps
`1 16 and 1 18 of figure 8. Figure 8 depicts the "discovery" procedure, and figure 9
`depicts the "monitoring" procedure.
`A substitute drawing is attached with the drawing correction marked in red ink
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 0 1.123 and MPEP rule 608.02@) and (v).
`
`1.
`
`The specification has been amended to reflect the correction to figure 9.
`
`.-
`
`,"F.
`
`i
`
`4
`
`

`
`.
`
`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`5
`
`..
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`Ne-
`
`Claims 9 through 14 have been added to w e r 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 10 is found in the specification on page 15,
`lines 21 -23 and page 16, lines 1-7. Support for Claim 1 1 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 10-1 2. Support for Claim 14 is found in the specification on page 16, lines
`8-9 and lines 17-23.
`
`I.
`
`
`.
`.
`Claim 1 has been rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 0 102(e) as being
`anticipated by Bauer et al. (5,367,635). The Examiner specifically found that Bauer
`teaches a method of determining whether a resource is present on a computer system
`comprising the steps of:
`(a) reading, fkom a storage device coupled to a computer system, discovery
`information (objects in configuration file 208 of Fig. 2) about how to determine
`whether the resource is present on the computer system (co1.4 lines 37-39; c01.2 lines
`42-50; co1.7 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 (~01.7 lines 8-
`11);
`
`c.
`
`(c) interpreting the instructions for the purpose of collecting data for use in
`determining whether the resource is present on the computer system (co1.8 lines 1-4);
`and
`
`(d) determining, responsive to the collected data, whether the resource is
`present on thb computer system (co1.5 lines 18-21)."
`
`5
`
`

`
`.
`
`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`. A
`
`6
`
`PATEN" APPLICATION
`
`For the reasons set forth below, Applicants respectfully traverse 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 &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
`manapement of computer system resources and applications across a distributed
`computing environment, and the Bauer reference is directed
`' "network
`management objects" to an agent system.
`
`
`
`. .
`Claim 1 of the present invention is directed to
`whether a computer resource or application is present on a computer system. The
`Examiner specifically found that Bauer teaches a method of determining whether a
`resource is present on a computer system comprising the step of "(a) reading, fiom a
`storage device coupled to a computer system, discovery information (objects in
`configuration file 208 of Fig, 2) about how to determine whether the resource is
`present on the computer system (co1.4 lines 37-39; c01.2 lines 42-50; co1.7 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 Bauer reference reads a "configuration file"
`which contains a sequence of numbers, called an "object identifier" (see co1.5, lines 3-
`S), and information pointing to software routines (i.e. names and paths) which may be
`used to request data from the "object." (e.g. seecol. 5, 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. The Bauer
`the presence of a resource or application on a computer
`reference
`on the computer system.
`system, but
`the
`'
`11 '
`In contrast, Claim 1 of the present invention includes the step of reading
`"discovery information" about how to discover or determine whether a resource is
`
`I ,
`
`11
`
`b
`
`6
`
`

`
`.
`
`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`7
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`*-
`
`present on the computer system, The present invention uses this information to
`interrogate the computer system to determine whether a computer resource or
`application is actually present on the computer system. Unlike the present invention,
`read information about how to determine whether a
`the Bauer reference
`computer resource is present on the computer system, but pnlr reads information fiom
`its "configuration file" about "objects" that are assumed or known to be present on the
`system. Thus, Bauer
`teach step (a) of Claim 1, and therefore
`anticipate the present invention.
`
`The Examiner also found that the Bauer reference teaches a method of
`determining whether a resource is present on a computer system comprising the step
`of "(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 (co1.7 lines 8-1 I)."
`As discussed above, a close reading of the Bauer reference indicates that it is
`. .
`ncrt directed to
`whether computer resources or applications
`are present on the computer system, but is Q& directed to aUng "network
`management objects" to an agent system. Moreover, the information contained in the
`"configuration file" disclosed in the Bauer reference contains information (Le.
`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 6 1-68; co1.6 lines 1-2). The programs identified in the "configuration file" are
`executable files. These executable files are written in an interpretable high-level
`computer programming Ianguage 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 1 of the present
`invention.
`The Examiner implies that the "reconfigure" command used in the Bauer
`reference teaihes 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
`
`7
`
`

`
`.
`
`.
`
`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`8
`
`PATENT APPLXATION
`
`"reconfigwe" command disclosed in the Bauer reference merely reads the textual
`information fiom 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 1-2, lines 10-26). This "appending" of the 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 1 of the present invention requires that the instructions
`referred to in the "discovery information" be Mitt en in an interpretable high-level
`computer programming language and be 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. 10, lines 7-9). These script programs are written in a high-
`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. 1 1, lines 11-
`24).
`
`teach the use of an interpretable high-level
`The Bauer reference
`computer programming language. Therefore, the invention disclosed in the Bauer
`teach the step of finding instructions that are (1) written in an
`reference
`interpretable high-level computer programming language, and (2) stored in their
`
`1
`
`8
`
`

`
`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`9
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`uninterpreted form. Thus, the Bauer reference &g-lwl
`therefore
`anticipate the present invention.
`
`teach step (b) of Claim 1 , and
`
`The Examiner further found that the Bauer 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 computer system (co1.8 lines 1-4)."
`The Bauer reference a 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
`to the addition of
`system. As discussed above, the Bauer reference is directed Q&
`"objects" to an agent system object database. Unlike the present invention, the Bauer
`. .
`whether a resource is
`reference
`teach a method of
`present on a computer system, f l p ~ does Bauer use instructions written in an
`interpretable high-level computer programming language. Thus, the Bauer reference
`teach step (c) of Claim I of the present invention, and therefore, W
`anticipate the present invention.
`
`The Examiner further 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 data, 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 fiom 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 &om the
`network management system through a SNMP GET or C3ET-NEXT request for
`information about a particular "object"
`on the computer system. Bauer
`also describks a request to obtain information 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.
`
`b
`
`9
`
`

`
`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`10
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`. .
`
`The Bauer reference &ajmt teach the method of
`whether
`a computer resource or application is actually present on the computer system, Bauer
`obtains information about "objects" that it is told are already present on the
`Q&
`computer system by the "configuration file." Whereas, the present invention claims a
`. .
`method of
`whether a computer resource or application is
`present on the computer system.
`teach the method of
`For all the foregoing reasons, the Bauer reference
`. .
`by the Bauer reference, and is therefore
`Claim 1. Thus, Claim 1 is
`patentable over the Bauer reference.
`
`11.
`
`.
`
`*
`
`
`
`Claim 2 has been rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. 0 102(e) as being
`anticipated by Bauer et al. (5,367,635). The Examiner found that Bauer teaches the
`method of Claim 1 of determining whether a resource is present on a computer
`system. The Examiner m e r found that the Bauer reference "teaches all the steps in
`claim 1 are performed by a software system (agent sohare) stored in the computer
`system and executing thereon (col. 6, lines 57-62)."
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse the Examiner's rejection because the Bauer
`reference does not teach the present invention.
`As indicated in the foregoing analysis, Claim 1 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 q allowable independent claim.
`Moreover, a close reading of the Bauer reference indicates that the invention
`disclosed is directed to a software system resident on -,
`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, lides 3-7; and col. 8, lines 5-7).
`In contrast, Claim 2 of the present invention is directed to a software system
`stored and executing on
`computer system. The Bauer reference does not
`
`10
`
`

`
`Docket No, BMC530/4-002
`
`11
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`111.
`
`teach all the steps of the invention of Claim 1 petformed 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.
`.
`.
`
`Claim 3 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 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 10-1 7)."
`
`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 1 , the Bauer reference doesnot
`. .
`teach the steps of the claimed method of
`whether a
`computer resource or application is present on a computer system. Thus, independent
`Claim 1 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.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`*
`
`.
`
`IV. p
`The Examiner rejected Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 8 103 as being unpatentable
`over Bauer et al. as applied to claims 1-3, and further in view of Wrabetz et al.
`(5,442,791).
`Particularly, the Examiner states that the Bauer reference "discloses the
`claimed invehtion except for the automatic execution of resource monitoring steps
`according to a time schedule." The Examiner further states that the Wrabetz reference
`"teaches that it is known to automatically perform resource monitoring periodically."
`
`11
`
`

`
`-
`Docket No. BMCS30/4-002
`
`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 are updated on a timely basis.
`
`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
`.
`.
`
`a directed to the bcovery-
`of computer resources and
`applications present on a computer system. Unlike the present invention, the Bauer
`reference is pnlr directed to the addition of "network management objects," related to
`computer resources already present on the computer system, to a network
`management agent software system. (e,g. see col. 3, lines 46-48; col. 4, lines 23-26;
`and col. 6, lines 26-28). The above referenced analysis of the Bauer reference shows
`that the Bauer reference
`teach the steps of the claimed invention.
`Additionally, a close reading of the Wrabetz reference indicates that it is
`.
`.
`
`directed to the periodic monltonnp
`of resources already present and "predefined" on a
`computer system. (e.g. see co1.15, lines 38-44). Whereas, the present invention is
`. .
`directed to the method of
`whether a computer resource or
`application is present on computer system according to an automated time schedule.
`Thus, the Wrabetz reference is & directed to the periodic discovert! of whether
`computer resources or applications.are present on a computer system.
`Contrary to the Examiner's finding, Applicants respectfblly submit that fhe
`teach the steps of the claimed method of
`Bauer reference
`whether a computer resource or application is present on a computer
`system, and that the Wrabetz reference a teach the step of periodically
`. .
`whether a resource or application 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
`
`.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`.
`
`*
`
`
`
`13
`
`d PATENT APPLICATION
`
`v.
`
`reference is incorrect. Applicants respectfirlly submit that Claim 4 is not obvious in
`light of the Bauer and Wrabetz references, and is therefore an allowable claim.
`.
`.
`
`The Examiner rejected Claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 8 103 as being
`unpatentable over Bauer et al. in view of Wrabetz et al. and Wanderer et al. patent no.
`549 1,796.
`
`
`
`1
`
`.
`
`se to
`For the reasons setforth above and explained below, Applicants respectfully
`traverse the Examiner's rejection because the Bauer reference, the Wrabetz reference,
`and the Wanderer references do not teach the steps of the claimed invention.
`
`In rejecting Claim 5, the Examiner found that the Bauer reference teaches the
`claimed method of determining whether a resource is present on a computer system.
`The Examiner further found that the Wanderer reference teaches the steps of (1)
`sending a transmission &om the server computer system to the network management
`computer system, and (2) displaying, at the site of the network management computer
`system and responsive to the transmission, an indication of whether the resource is
`present on the server computer system (c01.2, lines 55-63 and co1.56, 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 Wrabetz reference in the rejection of
`Claim 5, (see Office Action 7 13). However, the Examiner did not provide any
`indication or information as to how the Wrabetz 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 co1.15, lines 38-44).
`The method of Claim 5 does not include the step of periodic monitoring of computer
`
`e-
`
`, '
`
`13
`
`

`
`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 1, the Bauer reference huut
`. .
`teach the steps of the claimed method of
`whether a
`computer resource or application is present on a computer system. Hence, the Bauer
`teach steps (a)-(d) of the claimed invention of Claim 5.
`reference
`For at least these reasons, Applicants respectfidly submit that the combined
`teachings of Bsuer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer fall far 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.
`ClaimS
`In rejecting Claim 6, the Examiner found the Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer
`references teach the claimed method of monitoring a computer network.
`Claim 6 is dependent upon independent Claim 5. For the reasons set forth
`above for Claim 5, Applicants respectfully submit that Claim 6 is also allowable over
`the combination of the Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer references.
`s & u n L z .
`In rejecting Claim 7, the Examiner found the Bauer, Wrabetz, 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, Wrabetz, and Wanderer references.
`chiin&
`In rejecting Claim 8, the Examiner found the Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer
`..-
`references teach the claimed method of monitoring a computer network. The
`Examiner M e r found that the Bauer reference "teaches the agent system employing
`a high-level interpretable language @nix shell command, col. 5, lines 67-68; and
`~01.6, lines 1 -2)."
`Claim 8 is dependent upon dependent Claim 6. For the reasons set forth above
`for Claim 6, Applicants respectfblly submit that Claim 8 is also allowable over the
`combination of the Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer references.
`
`b
`
`.
`
`14
`
`

`
`.
`
`-
`
`Docket No. BMC530/4-002
`
`15
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`Additionally, a close reading of the Bauer reference indicates that it may
`utilize Unix sohare operating system shell commands to initiate s o h a r e routines
`"objects" on the agent system. (e.g. see col. 5, lines 61-68; and col. 6,
`used to
`lines 1-2). The Examiner found that Unix shell commands are a high-level
`.
`interpretable language, However, Unix shell commands are merely software operating
`system commands used to initiate the execution 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. 1 1, lines 1 1 - 1 9; and p. 12, lines 1-1 0). The script programs are s o h a r e
`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 nnly teaches the use of external software operating
`system level commands. Unlike the present invention, the invention disclosed in the
`Bauer reference does
`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,
`Wrabetz, and Wanderer references.
`In addition, the prior art contains no suggestion to modify the respective
`references so as to reach the requirements
`teachings of Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer
`of claims 5-8. Absent such suggestion, Applicants respectfully submits that any such
`modification would necessarily be based on the improper hindsight application of
`Applicant's own teachings. See In re Luskowski, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1397, 1398, (Fed.Cir. , '
`1989). For this additional reason, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 5-8 are
`patentable o v ~ t the Bauer, Wrabetz, and Wanderer references.
`
`e-
`
`15
`
`

`
`. . -.
`
`. . , .
`
`_ _ _
`
`-.*-
`
`.-
`
`..
`
`.
`
`.
`
`
`
`,
`
`Docket NO. BMC530/4-002
`
`16
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`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. 0 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,
`VNSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
`
`L M & R . miele
`Reg. No. 30,694
`
`.
`
`2500 First City Tower
`1001 Fannin
`Houston, Texas 77002-6760
`(7 13) 758-2065
`September 19, 1996
`
`I
`
`1
`
`16
`
`

`
`M
`
`. ' *
`.. *.
`
`-u-—-—
`
`_.‘‘-.—o-.
`
`.
`
`_
`
`(
`~¢rs'nJtu.lJ-5
`Aqhd‘.
`‘ Qrocvawgskoou (
`K47’ ""' +14 '
`'
`,,’z::u_:“,4,H
`‘
`1
`L
`_____
`__.._.-..
`
`r.-nu-—-.—.—..—.-an
`
`‘~-
`‘.
`
`|__,___,___
`
`.';°'§fi(.].g;L(_ :r~)4H»
`:$"vJ".‘$'"':“°.‘
`’
`I Mov\H'0fIVt‘$ grac~eA-wt.
`)
`________...A
`.
`
`Va;-._-3...‘
`“Q ‘AL. '1 \
`\
`_,‘5‘'',;,
`”'~_:'\‘
`'1‘. ‘I ‘~.:‘;
`,'.''.v.'
`
`f
`1‘
`'3
`7‘:
`
`Mom1"oR\NCq
`
`.
`
`'
`Aggni”-, rum tutu: SW45
`
`/‘W46
`
`.
`
`-
`
`.
`
`2 “,5 I)
`
`
`
`cgwmwé ¢m¢_u%-irn mweqgy 1:‘-um'.M;
`4455- 35%.
`is £31” pufolu 4,mom' \-g-(~‘.n, W‘ 4‘
`& Nsoutm MA +h~ue€v-N
`?°‘-‘-V-‘- i4
`
`-*0
`Ms‘
`‘PM;m;:‘fl:-‘
`°"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rm.-Wm"
`‘WNW at e¢‘£hHlo1 K,‘
`ducks: ‘.114. 30):» 3.
`ace-EH’ ‘MAM! empw-41
`-H91. M
`
`
`
`
`
`sewer
`
`Q
`
`.
`
`“L9 55%
`(
`cg:-£m»y{:\1At9u1uL
`\5i" V-now\\¢J:j£
`AM. 14 Wfi "*-955"‘!
`-90¢ coflvcgvq
`-
`«his
`lab.
`
`I
`
`1n\o<gr«d- :.u~3¢ M50 I
`'
`-
`+9 co\\!5t J3.
`
`-
`
`shirt.
`
`on -
`
`colluwstblz 'w\ 4 /\ $67.
`$16-KWQLLL’
`
`?m-v~\-wA-a Eemwq do '5"
`
`
`wnyqw Ajvgbu, ulgzv, aqbiwlyi’
`
`
`*““.“«*=‘:.‘:.”...m‘“1".f4.“’t:.“.'e':<,‘i"'«J.“ ~ ~ 64
`
`
`
`/%/g
`
`“
`
`.,
`:13 (‘U-olltu‘
`‘,7 4
`qracclute ‘mA§n.¥o.A,
`hssgomggfi aqué
`
`\
`
`.
`
`>
`
`‘
`
`“B
`
`
`
`
`
`n
`aw «Q muuqer
`'mA?c: ~\ 5 {us of- movfiflotid mgoocu
`
`+=.<a,.
`
`<1
`
`17
`
`17