Ex Parte Adams et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 201311318077 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte FRANK PAUL ADAMS JR., SANJIV PURUSHOTTAM DAMLE, RICHARD BRIAN DRESCHER, JOSHUA JEROME MORRIS, MICHAEL ROBERT SMITH, STEPHEN MICHAEL SMITH, JONATHAN LYLE SPIEKER, and CHRISTOPHER LAWSON WHITE1 ________________ Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Verizon Communications Inc. is the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 – 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention Appellants invented an approach that provides support for automatic fault isolation in a managed services system. A fault indication corresponding to a communications network of a customer is determined. An analysis is performed to determine a root cause of the fault indication using information associated with the determined fault to output an alarm. A determination is made whether the alarm is associated with a maintenance event to update the alarm. Further, a workflow event corresponding to the alarm is created. See Spec., Abstract. Exemplary Claims (Emphases Added) 1. A computer-implemented method for supporting automatic fault isolation in a managed services system of a service provider, wherein, in accordance with coded instructions, a processor causes the following method to be performed: determining a fault indication corresponding to a customer communications network; analyzing a root cause of the fault indication using information associated with the determined fault to output an alarm; Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 3 determining whether the alarm is associated with a maintenance event and, if associated with a maintenance event, updating the maintenance event and alarm associated therewith; and creating a workflow event corresponding to the alarm. 17. A computer-implemented method for providing automated processing of network faults, wherein, in accordance with coded instructions, a processor causes the following method to be performed:: [sic] monitoring a customer network for a first alarm corresponding to a fault, wherein the customer network is associated with a customer that subscribes to a managed service of a service provider; determining a cause of the fault based on correlating a plurality of alarms including the first alarm from the customer network; generating a second alarm corresponding to the determined cause; initiating an automated fault handling process in response to the determined cause based on the second alarm; and creating a workflow event that includes the second alarm and status information on the second alarm, the workflow event being associated with a trouble ticket, such that the workflow event is configured to close the ticket upon resolution of the fault. 18. A computer-implemented method according to claim 17, further comprising: presenting the workflow event to the customer via a graphical user interface. Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 4 19. A computer-implemented method according to claim 17, further comprising: setting a state of the workflow event to reflect maintenance activities triggered by the second alarm. Rejections The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1 – 20 under a non- statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection as being unpatentable over co-pending application No. 11/318,088 (the ’088 application). Ans. 3 – 6.2 The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 under a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection as being unpatentable over co-pending application No. 11/317,893 (the ’893 application). Ans. 6 – 8. The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1 – 4, 9 – 12, and 15 under a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection as being unpatentable over co-pending application No. 11/317,882 (the ’882 application). Ans. 8 – 10. 2 While Appellants contend the Examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 1 – 20 under a nonstatutory obviousness-type double-patenting rejection based on the claims of co-pending application No. 11/318,088, we decline to reach this rejection because the claims relied upon have been canceled. See Amend., application No. 11/318,088, p. 2 (Aug. 1, 2013). Panels have flexibility to reach or not reach provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejections, depending on the circumstances. See, e.g., Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (concluding that it was premature to address the Examiner’s provisional rejection of claims when all other rejections had been reversed). Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 5 The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cerami (US 2002/0078017 A1; June 20, 2002) and Kromer (US 7,120,633 B1; Oct. 10, 2006; filed July 30, 2003). Ans. 11 – 14. The Examiner rejects claims 17 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cerami. Ans. 10 – 11. The Examiner alternatively rejects claims 17 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cerami and Bleznyk (US 6,965,309 B1; Nov. 15, 2005). Ans. 14 – 16. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that the recitations of claim 1 are obvious in light of the recitations of claim 1 the ’893 application? 2. Did the Examiner err in concluding that the recitations of claim 1 are obvious in light of the recitations of claim 1 the ’882 application? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Kromer teaches or suggests “determining whether the alarm is associated with a maintenance event and, if associated with a maintenance event, updating the maintenance event and alarm associated therewith,” as recited in claim 1? 4. Did the Examiner err in finding that Cerami discloses: (1) “generating a second alarm corresponding to the determined cause”; (2) “initiating an automated fault handling process in response to the determined cause based on the second alarm”; and (3) “creating a workflow event that includes the second alarm and status information on the second alarm,” as recited in claim 17? Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 6 5. Did the Examiner err in finding that Cerami discloses “presenting the workflow event to the customer via a graphical user interface,” as recited in claim 18? 6. Did the Examiner err in finding that Cerami discloses “setting a state of the workflow event to reflect maintenance activities triggered by the second alarm,” as recited in claim 19? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 — Non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting (the ’893 application) Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection as being unpatentable over the ’893 application because the Examiner’s findings do not show that the ’893 application teaches or suggests all of the recitations of claim 1. See App. Br. 10 – 11. We agree with Appellants. For example, the Examiner’s findings do not persuasively show that the ’893 application’s claim 1 recitation of “generating a workflow event corresponding to the alarm, wherein resolution of the fault is automated according to the workflow event” teaches or suggests the present application’s claim 1 recitation of “determining whether the alarm is associated with a maintenance event and, if associated with a maintenance event, updating the maintenance event and alarm associated therewith.” See Adv. Act., p. 5 (May 18, 2010); Ans. 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s provisional rejection of claim 1, and similarly rejected claims 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12, under a non- statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection over the ’893 application. Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 7 Claims 1 – 4, 9 – 12, and 15 — Non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting (the ’882 application) Similar to above, we also find that the Examiner’s findings do not persuasively show that the ’882 application’s claim 1 recitation of “communicating with a trouble management system to correlate the alarm with an existing trouble ticket and associating the new trouble ticket with the existing trouble ticket” teaches or suggests the present application’s claim 1 recitation of “determining whether the alarm is associated with a maintenance event and, if associated with a maintenance event, updating the maintenance event and alarm associated therewith.” See Adv. Act., p. 6 (May 18, 2010); Ans. 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s provisional rejection of claim 1, and similarly rejected claims 2 – 4, 9 – 12, and 15, under a non- statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection over the ’882 application. Claims 1 – 16 — 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds that Kromer, which is directed to a method and system for automated handling of alarms from a fault management system for a telecommunications network, by teaching the evaluation of an alarm to determine whether it is the product of routine maintenance, teaches or suggests “determining whether the alarm is associated with a maintenance event and, if associated with a maintenance event, updating the maintenance event and alarm associated therewith,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 12 (citing Kromer, col. 4, ll. 43 – 58). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Kromer fails to teach or suggest modifying both a maintenance Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 8 event and an associated alarm. See App. Br. 21. We disagree with Appellants and find no error in the Examiner’s rejection. Kromer teaches that it may not be appropriate to take any action with respect to an alarm if “it is a product of routine maintenance on the network device. In other words, there is no need to address [such an] alarm since it is a temporary and intended network condition.” Kromer, col. 4, ll. 52 – 57. By determining that no action needs to be initiated (i.e., resolving the alarm as being the product of routine maintenance), we find Kromer teaches or suggests updating (resolving) the alarm associated with an associated maintenance event. Further, even if no action is initiated, “the event may be reported or logged for administrative purposes, such as for tracking planned outages or reconciling work orders with actual system events.” Kromer, col. 4, l. 65 – col. 5, l. 1. An artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized that by not only resolving an alarm without taking action, but alo reporting or logging the alarm to track planned outage or reconcile work order with actual system events, Kromer teaches or suggests also updating a maintenance event associated with the alarm. We find logging of an alarm and the reconciliation of the alarm with a maintenance event (a work order) associated with the alarm represents an update of the maintenance event. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Kromer teaches or suggests “determining whether the alarm is associated with a maintenance event and, if associated with a maintenance event, updating the maintenance event and alarm associated therewith,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 12. Appellants further argue that “[t]here would have been no reason, absent impermissible hindsight, for modifying the repair ticketing system of Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 9 Cerami et al. to include a determination that an alarm is associated with a maintenance event and then updating the maintenance event and alarm associated therewith because Cerami et al. is only concerned with managing a repair process for a fault.” App. Br. 21. However, we agree with the Examiner, see Ans. 28, and further emphasize that the rejection takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of an artisan of ordinary skill at the time of the invention and does not include knowledge gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of Cerami and Kromer in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) was proper. See Ans. 11 – 12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 – 16, which are not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 21 and 23; Reply Br. 6. Claims 17 and 20 — 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) The Examiner finds that Cerami, which is directed to fault management in a very high bit rate digital subscriber line (VDSL) network, by disclosing the creation of a hard failure to an affected customer in response to discovered and isolated alarms, discloses “generating a second alarm corresponding to the determined cause,” as recited in claim 17. See Ans. 10 (citing Cerami, fig. 8). Appellants contend “[t]he Examiner’s reliance on the hard failure in step 806 of Fig. 8 of Cerami et al. as corresponding to the claimed ‘second alarm’ is misplaced.” App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants contend that in the process disclosed by Cerami “there is no ‘second alarm,’ as claimed, wherein the second alarm is generated, with the second alarm corresponding to the determined cause Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 10 . . . .” App. Br. 13. We disagree with Appellants and find no error in the Examiner’s rejection. Cerami discloses a process in which alarms are first discovered. See Cerami, fig. 8, step S800 (“Hard Failure Discovered/Received by Fault management engine”). Ceramin’s alarms are then isolated. See id. at fig. 8, steps S802 (“Alarms Correlated and filtered”) and S804 (“interact with Network Topology Data dictionary”). The Examiner correctly finds, see Ans. 22, that a hard failure is then created, see Cerami, fig. 8, step S806 (“Create hard failure to affected customer base”). Cerami discloses that as a result “all customers affected by the alarm and/or the root cause of the alarm are discovered.” Cerami, ¶ [0082]. That is, Cerami generates a second alarm (a created hard failure) based on a received and isolated first alarm (an initial hard failure) to identify all customers affected by the first alarm. Because the second alarm identifies all customers affected by the first alarm, the second alarm corresponds to the determined cause of the first alarm. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Cerami discloses “generating a second alarm corresponding to the determined cause,” as recited in claim 17. See Ans. 10. The Examiner further finds that by attempting to resolve the isolated alarm, Cerami discloses “initiating an automated fault handling process in response to the determined cause based on the second alarm,” as recited in claim 17. Id. (citing Cerami, ¶¶ [0084] – [0086]). Appellants contend that in Cerami’s process “there is no ‘second alarm,’ as claimed . . . with an automated fault handling process initiated in response to the determined cause based on the second alarm.” App. Br. 13 – 14. However, in Cerami, at step S810 a repair ticket is issued against the hard failure created in step Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 11 S806. See Cerami, ¶¶ [0082] – [0083] and fig. 8. In step S814, “the process attempts to resolve the isolated alarm.” Id.at ¶ [0084]; see also Cerami, fig. 8. In other words, Cerami’s attempt to resolve the alarm (i.e., initiation of an automated fault handling process) is in response to the created hard error (i.e., based on the second alarm). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Cerami discloses “initiating an automated fault handling process in response to the determined cause based on the second alarm,” as recited in claim 17. The Examiner also finds that in executing a predefined resolution procedures based on the type of alarm, Cerami discloses “creating a workflow event that includes the second alarm and status information on the second alarm,” as recited in claim 17. See Ans. 10 (citing Cerami, ¶ [0086]). Appellants contend that Cerami’s process does not disclose creating “a workflow event including the second alarm and status information on the second alarm.” App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants argue that in Cerami “the execution of the predefined resolution procedure is based, not on a ‘second alarm,’ as claimed, but, rather on a type of the alarm or an alarm number.[] A ‘type’ of alarm is not the alarm, itself.” Id. at 15. Appellants further argue that “this ‘type of the alarm or an alarm number’ disclosed in Cerami et al. corresponds more accurately to the claimed ‘first alarm’ because this is the alarm for which the customer network is monitored.” Id. However, Appellants do not persuasively distinguish between basing execution of a predefined resolution procedure on the created hard failure and creating a workflow event that includes the second alarm. See id. at 15 – 16; Reply Br. 5. Moreover, Cerami’s execution of a predefined resolution procedure based on a type of the alarm or an alarm Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 12 number is based on the created hard failure (i.e., the second alarm). See Cerami, fig. 8 and ¶ [0084]. Appellants further argue that “the mere fact that details of an alarm, including its status, are known, does not inescapably lead to the conclusion that this is a disclosure of a workflow event that includes a second alarm and its status so that this information is available to a user via a GUI [graphical user interface].” App. Br. 16. Appellants also argue that the predefined resolution procedure of Cerami is not a “workflow event” because the claimed “‘workflow event’ is associated with a GUI, and has some interaction with a GUI.” Id. at 16 – 17. However, the Examiner correctly notes that Appellants arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention. See Ans. 25 – 26. Similarly, Appellants’ argument that “[t]he predefined resolution procedure of Cerami et al. cannot be ‘updated’ or ‘closed,’” App. Br. 17, is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, which does not define a “workflow event” as requiring these features. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Cerami discloses “creating a workflow event that includes the second alarm and status information on the second alarm,” as recited in claim 17. See Ans. 10 – 11. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 17, and claim 20, which is not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 20. Claim 18 — 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) The Examiner finds that Cerami’s disclosure regarding notification of users by web of trouble ticket resolution discloses “presenting the workflow event to the customer via a graphical user interface,” as recited in claim 18. Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 13 See Ans. 11 (citing Cerami, ¶¶ [0096] and [0100]). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Cerami “indicates no particular manner of notifying said customers and it is pure speculation to conclude that not only are the customers notified via a GUI, but that a ‘workflow event’ is also presented to the customers via a GUI.” App. Br. 18. Appellants do not persuasively distinguish between notifying users of trouble ticket resolution and presentation of a workflow event. Moreover, Cerami not only discloses providing such notifications by web, see Cerami, ¶ [0098], Cerami also discloses providing such notifications to customer premise equipment (CPE), such as a TV 242 or workstation 244 that can receive video signals (i.e., devices that provide a visual, graphical user interface), see id. at ¶¶ [0037] and [0098]. That is, Cerami discloses providing notifications visually to a GUI. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Cerami discloses “presenting the workflow event to the customer via a graphical user interface,” as recited in claim 18. See Ans. 11. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 18. Claim 19 — 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) The Examiner finds that Cerami, by providing notification that a trouble ticket has been resolved (i.e., that a predefined resolution procedure has completed successfully), discloses “setting a state of the workflow event to reflect maintenance activities triggered by the second alarm,” as recited in claim 19. See Ans. 11 (citing Cerami, ¶ [0098]). Appellants contend that Cerami’s notification “does not relate to a ‘workflow event,’ as claimed.” App. Br. 20. However, Cerami’s notification relates to the execution of a predefined resolution procedure and thus shows that Cerami sets a state of Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 14 the workflow event to reflect maintenance activities. Appellants further contend that Cerami’s setting step and maintenance activities are not triggered by the second alarm “[s]ince there is no such ‘second alarm’ in Cerami et al.” See id. However, as discussed above, the execution of a predefined resolution procedure in Cerami is triggered by a created hard failure (i.e., a second alarm). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Cerami discloses “setting a state of the workflow event to reflect maintenance activities triggered by the second alarm,” as recited in claim 19. See Ans. 11. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 19. Claims 17 – 20 — 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner alternatively rejects claims 17 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cerami and Bleznyk because Bleznyk explicitly teaches creating a second alarm called a “second alarm” (as opposed to a created “hard failure”). See Ans. 15 (citing Bleznyk, col. 3, ll. 16 – 26). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Bleznyk does not provide “any suggestion to the skilled artisan to modify Cerami et al. in any manner so as to provide a ‘second alarm.’” App. Br. 24. Specifically, Appellants argue that there is no need in Cerami to display power alarm information. Id. However, the Examiner correctly notes that power alarms relate to network failures. See Ans. 31. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Bleznyk, which teaches “generating second display information in response to correlating the alarm information with the ticket information, the second display information causing display of second alarm information.” Bleznyk, col. 3, ll. 23 – 26. Therefore, we find the Examiner Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 15 did not err in relying on the combined teachings and suggestions of Cerami and Bleznyk in alternatively rejecting claims 17 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 17 – 20. DECISION We do not reach the Examiner’s provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1 – 20 as being unpatentable over the ’088 application. We reverse the Examiner’s provisional non-statutory obviousness- type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 as being unpatentable over the ’893 application. We reverse the Examiner’s provisional non-statutory obviousness- type double patenting rejection of claims 1 – 4, 9 – 12, and 15 as being unpatentable over the ’882 application. We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 17 – 20. We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1 – 20. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1 – 20. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2011-000381 Application 11/318,077 16 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation