PTAB

CBM2015-00107

ServiceNow Inc v. BMC Software Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Two-Phase Root Cause Analysis
  • Brief Description: The ’683 patent describes methods and systems for identifying the root cause of a problem and its subsequent impacts within a system or enterprise. The invention utilizes a two-phase process involving an "up-stream analysis" to find the root cause and a "down-stream analysis" to identify affected components, all based on a graphical "fault model."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims are Unpatentable as an Abstract Idea under 35 U.S.C. §101

  • References Relied Upon: Petitioner did not assert a traditional prior art ground but cited several publications to demonstrate that the claimed concepts were well-known mental processes. Key references included Gano (Apollo Root Cause Analysis, 1999), Malin (NASA Technical Memo. 1993), and Martin (Getting Started in Project Management, 2001).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to the abstract idea of identifying a root cause of a failure and determining its impacts, failing both steps of the test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
    • Alice Step 1 (Directed to an Abstract Idea): Petitioner contended that the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The central concept of the claims—a "fault model"—was argued to be an abstract representation of cause-and-effect relationships, equivalent to a directed graph or digraph. Petitioner cited references, particularly Martin, to show that such digraphs for root cause analysis could be created and utilized entirely by a human using only pen, paper, and sticky notes. The core claimed steps, such as "performing an up-stream analysis" and "performing a down-stream analysis," were framed as nothing more than the mental process of visually tracing paths on this abstract model to find an originating cause and its effects. Petitioner asserted that these steps replicate a fundamental, rational thought process for problem-solving that can be performed without any computer or technology.
    • Alice Step 2 (No Inventive Concept): Petitioner argued the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. For the method claims (e.g., 1, 56, 79), Petitioner asserted they contain no meaningful limitations beyond the abstract mental steps themselves. For the apparatus claims (e.g., 24, 90), which recite a "program storage device" and a "programmable control device," Petitioner argued they add nothing more than generic, conventional computer components. Citing the patent's specification, Petitioner noted that these components encompass standard hardware like processors and magnetic disks. Merely instructing that the abstract idea be performed on a generic computer was argued to be insufficient to confer patent eligibility, as the claims do not recite any specific technological implementation, solve a technical problem in a novel way, or improve the functioning of the computer itself.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed constructions for several terms to emphasize their abstract nature and lack of required technological implementation, which was central to its §101 argument.

  • "fault model": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as a "representation of conditions for modeled components." This construction was used to argue that the fault model is not a tangible or technological structure but an abstract collection of information.
  • "up-stream analysis" / "down-stream analysis": Petitioner proposed these terms be construed as "analysis of nodes up-stream from the node receiving the event notification" and "analysis of nodes down-stream from the second node," respectively. These constructions supported the argument that the analyses are merely abstract processes of navigating the informational structure of the fault model.
  • "enterprise": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a collection of components that can be monitored." This broad construction, supported by specification language mentioning its applicability to mechanical systems like pumps and valves, was used to argue that the claimed method is not limited to a technological, computer-based environment.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 12, 14, 21-22, 24-26, 35, 37, 44-45, 56-58, 67, 69, 76-77, 79-80, 83, 85, and 88-90 of the ’683 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.