PTAB

IPR2018-00982

Cherwell Software LLC v. BMC Software Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Enterprise Management System and Method Which Includes a Common Enterprise-Wide Namespace and Prototype-Based Hierarchical Inheritance
  • Brief Description: The ’586 patent discloses a software system for enterprise management. The system uses a hierarchical namespace to store objects representing hardware and software, where an "instance" object can dynamically inherit traits from a "prototype" object.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hudis - Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, 21-22, 24-29, 31-35 are obvious over Hudis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hudis (Patent 6,862,736).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hudis, which discloses an object manager for the Common Information Model (CIM), teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Hudis describes a method for managing an enterprise network using a CIM Object Manager (CIMOM). Petitioner asserted that Hudis’s disclosure of nested namespaces that are uniquely addressable via an object path constitutes the claimed "hierarchical namespace." Hudis further teaches adding objects (classes and instances) related to hardware and software (e.g., a "Disk" class) to the namespace. The core inventive concept of dynamic inheritance was allegedly disclosed in Hudis's example where an "Mfr" (manufacturer) instance object inherits properties, such as a file system type ("NTFS"), from a "Disk" prototype object. Because the CIMOM in Hudis retrieves and aggregates properties each time an object is queried, any changes to the prototype are reflected in the instance, thus meeting the "dynamic" inheritance limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground). Petitioner contended that Hudis alone renders the claims obvious.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hudis and Park - Claims 3, 10, 23, and 30 are obvious over Hudis in view of Park.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hudis (Patent 6,862,736) and Park (Patent 6,546,415).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hudis taught the base system for managing objects in an enterprise namespace, as detailed in Ground 1. Park was introduced to supply the additional limitation of "mounting local objects and remote objects." Park discloses a network management system where hierarchical namespaces, such as SNMP Managed Information Bases (MIBs), can be mounted into a master agent's namespace to create a single, distributed namespace. Petitioner contended that mounting a namespace necessarily includes mounting the local and remote objects contained within it.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Hudis and Park because both references address the same problem of managing resources in a network environment using namespaces. A POSITA would have recognized that applying Park’s well-known technique of mounting to the Hudis system was a simple and predictable way to achieve the benefit of a distributed namespace.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was expected because it involved applying a conventional technique (mounting from Park) to a known system (Hudis) for its intended and predictable purpose.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Hudis and Booth - Claims 14, 15, and 17-20 are obvious over Hudis in view of Booth.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hudis (Patent 6,862,736) and Booth (Patent 6,493,719).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims directed to an "application programming interface" (API) for managing an enterprise. Petitioner asserted that Hudis provides the underlying CIM-based enterprise management system. Booth, which is also a Microsoft patent and incorporates Hudis's priority application by reference, allegedly supplies the API. Booth discloses an API that acts as an intermediary to simplify management, transforming high-level scripts into the low-level syntax required for CIMOM queries, the exact type of system disclosed in Hudis.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references because they both expressly relate to Microsoft's implementation of CIM and address the same technology. Booth’s API was designed to work with a CIMOM like the one in Hudis. A POSITA reviewing Hudis would have been naturally led to Booth to find a known method for improving and simplifying interaction with the Hudis system.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination would have yielded the predictable result of making the Hudis CIM implementation easier to manage through a scripting interface.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claim 16 is obvious over Hudis and Booth in view of Park, arguing a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the API from Booth and the mounting technique from Park with the base Hudis system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "hierarchical namespace": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a logical arrangement of objects in a hierarchical, uniquely addressable system of object names." This construction was crucial for mapping Hudis, which describes nested, uniquely addressable namespaces, to the claims without being limited to a specific memory structure.
  • "dynamically inherits traits from the prototype": Petitioner argued for the construction "derives traits from the prototype that may change over time." This was central to the argument that Hudis's system, where an instance's properties are resolved upon each query to the prototype, meets the "dynamic" aspect of the claims because any updated trait in the prototype would be immediately reflected.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-35 of the ’586 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.