Ex Parte Adams et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 201312187146 (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 2011-000956 Application 12/187,146 Technology Center 2100 ________________ 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 2011-000956 Application 12/187,146 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 2 – 21. Claim 1 is canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention Appellants invented an approach for supporting automated fault isolation and recovery. A notification configuration option is transmitted to a browser interface utilized by a user associated with a customer network that is monitored by a service provider, wherein the user selects the notification configuration option to input notification information. The notification information is received, via the browser interface, from the customer. A notification message is received from a platform configured to create a workflow event in response to an alarm indicative of a fault within the customer network, wherein isolation and recovery of the fault is performed according to the workflow event, the notification message including information about the customer network during the fault isolation and recovery process. The notification message is transmitted in accordance with the stored notification information. See Spec., Abstract. Exemplary Claim (Emphases Added) 2. A method comprising: creating a workflow event in response to an alarm indicative of a fault within a customer network that is monitored by a service provider, wherein the workflow event is used to provide isolation and recovery of the fault; and Appeal 2011-000956 Application 12/187,146 3 generating a notification message, including information about the customer network during the isolation and recovery of the fault, for transmission according to a notification parameter specified by a user. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 2 – 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baron (US 2006/0064481 A1; Mar. 23, 2006; filed Sept. 17, 2004) and Cerami (US 2005/0183129 A1; Aug. 18, 2005; filed Dec. 23, 2004). Ans. 4 – 7. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Baron and Cerami teaches or suggests “generating a notification message . . . for transmission according to a notification parameter specified by a user,” as recited in claim 2? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Baron, which is directed to methods for service monitoring and control, teaches or suggests “generating a notification message . . . for transmission according to a notification parameter specified by a user,” as recited in claim 2. See Ans. 4 (citing Baron, ¶ [0045]). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because nowhere in Baron “is there a disclosure or even a suggestion of a notification parameter specified by a user.” App. Br. 7. The Examiner responds by correctly noting that Baron teaches or suggests sending notifications “via various communication devices ranging from cell phones, to email to graphical displays on consoles.” Ans. 8 (citing Baron, ¶ [0068]); see also Baron ¶¶ [0603] and [0605]. Appellants argue Appeal 2011-000956 Application 12/187,146 4 that that “there is no indication in Baron et al. that such notifications are generated ‘according to a notification parameter specified by a user’ or that there is any customer portal ‘configured to permit specifying how one or more notifications are provided to the user.’” Reply Br. 2. However, we agree with the Examiner that Baron’s teaching of various forms of communication for notification (e.g., cell phone and email communication) teaches or suggests notification according to a notification parameter (e.g., a cell phone number or email address) specified by a user (i.e., whoever is specifying where notifications should be received). See Ans. 4 and 8. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Baron teaches or suggests “generating a notification message . . . for transmission according to a notification parameter specified by a user,” as recited in claim 2. See id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Cerami, which is directed to a proactive repair process in an xDSL (digital subscriber line) network (with a VDSL (very high bit rate DSL) focus), also teaches or suggests “generating a notification message . . . for transmission according to a notification parameter specified by a user,” as recited in claim 2. See id. at 5 (citing Cerami, ¶¶ [0071] and [0081]). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because in Cerami “there is absolutely no disclosure or suggestion of either a notification parameter specified by a user or a specification as to how notifications are provided to a user.” App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants argue that “placement of a notification in customer records of an open repair ticket, as in paragraph [0097] of Cerami et al., is clearly not a ‘notification parameter specified by a user’ and the mere placement of a notification in Appeal 2011-000956 Application 12/187,146 5 a customer record does not, necessarily, result in a notification actually ‘provided to a user.’” Id. In response, the Examiner correctly finds that in Cerami customers may be notified that a hard failure has been resolved. See Ans. 8 (citing, e.g., Cerami ¶ [0100]). In Cerami, “notification may be by the web, email, CPE [customer premise equipment] 240, or any other system capable of notifying a customer.” Cerami, ¶ [0102]. Cerami’s teaching of these various forms of communication for notification (e.g., web and email) teaches or suggests notification according to a notification parameter (e.g., an email address) specified by a user (i.e., whoever is specifying where notifications should be received). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Cerami teaches or suggests “generating a notification message . . . for transmission according to a notification parameter specified by a user,” as recited in claim 2. See Ans. 5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2, and claims 3 – 21, which are not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 7 – 8; Reply Br. 3. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 2 – 21. 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 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation