Ex Parte Allavarpu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 17, 2006

09557068 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 17, 2006)

__________________________________
1 The above noted panel only recently received this appeal for decision.
The above noted panel only recently received this appeal for decision. The opinion
in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte SAI V. ALLAVARPU, XUESI DONG
and LINDA C. LEE
__________

Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068
___________

ON BRIEF1
___________

Before THOMAS, KRASS, and HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s final rejection of
claims 1 through 45.

Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

2

Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A network management system comprising:
a gateway which is coupled to one or more managed objects and which is
configured to deliver messages between the managed objects and one or more
managers; and

a platform-independent interface to the gateway, wherein the gateway is
configurable to communicate with the managers through the platform-independent
interface to deliver the messages;

wherein the gateway is configurable to deliver the messages for each
manager in a format selected by that manager.

The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Carre 6,282,579 Aug. 28, 2001
(Filed Aug. 20, 1997)
Shank et al. (Shank) 6,445,776 Sep. 3, 2002
(Filed Dec. 31, 1998)
Claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 16 through 18, 20, 21, 31 through 33, 35 and 36
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Carre. Next, claims
1, 2, 4 through 11, 13 through 17, 19 through 26, 28 through 32, 34 through 41 and
43 through 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Shank. Lastly, Shank has been utilized by the examiner within 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
the basis of unpatentability of dependent claims 3, 12, 18, 27, 33 and 42.
Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

3
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference
is made to the brief and reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to the answer for
the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, as expanded upon
here, we sustain each of the rejections of the claims on appeal.
Independent system claim 1 has a corresponding method independent claim
16 which has features as well correspondingly recited in carrier medium
independent claim 31. To simplify our consideration of the issues, even though
appellants have separately argued independent claims 1, 16 and 31, corresponding
arguments are presented as to each of these claims. Similarly, because dependent
claims 2, 17 and 32 have the same features, the same arguments are presented. We
will therefore treat only the arguments with respect to independent claim 1 as
representative of those of independent claims 16 and 31 and do the same for claim
2 as representative of the subject matter of dependent claims 17 and 32. The same
may be said of corresponding features recited in dependent claims 10, 25 and 40;
claims 11, 26 and 41 and dependent claims 13, 28 and 43. Lastly, in the context of
the rejection of certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the features of dependent
Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

4
claims 3, 18 and 33 correspond and the features of dependent claims 12, 27 and 42
correspond.
At the outset, it is noted that the claimed gateway appears to correspond to
the CORBA Gateway 208 in representative system figure 2 as disclosed. The
platform-independent interface capability is provided by the IDL (interface
definition language) interfaces. The claimed manager corresponds to the TMN
manager software of the client computers of figure 1a also shown in a
corresponding manner as TMN manager applications 206 in figure 2. The recited
managed objects appear to correspond to the PMI or portable management interface
applications 210 in figure 2. Structurally, these appear to correspond to the
managed objects depicted as TMN agent hardware 150 in various forms in the left
portion of disclosed figure 1a.
With this in mind, the paragraph bridging specification pages 13 and 14 sets
forth a first instance relating to the claimed feature of independent claims 1, 16 and
31 of a manager being able to receive messages as delivered to it “in a format
selected by that manager.” This is also discussed at specification page 22, lines 3
through 9 and specification page 36, line 20 through page 37, line 27. To the extent
broadly recited in the independent claims 1, 16 and 31 on appeal, the feature
Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

5
feature appears to be already recognized to be taught in the admitted prior art,
particularly the discussion at specification page 5, line 20 through page 7, line 27.
The platform-independent interface capability in the form of IDL is known in the
art for its function of being able to provide platform-independent interfaces as its
name clearly indicates. In accordance with the discussion at the top of page 6 and
the middle of this page, in addition to the discussion in the lower half of page 7, the
ability of a manager to specify its own formats appears to be well known in the art.
As to the first stated rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 relying upon Carre, we
agree with the examiner’s views expressed in the answer and expand upon them
here. Initially, from an artisan’s perspective, knowing what prior art exists as
discussed in Carre as well as appellants’ own admitted prior art just noted, it
appears to us that the artisan knew that gateways were known to be
“configurable” to be able to communicate through platform-independent interfaces
to provide message communications between source and destination objects such as
manager and managed objects. Moreover, there is only a passive selectability, and
there is no positive recitation of any selection by any manager from among a
plurality of different formats available.

Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

6
We understand from appellants’ arguments in the brief beginning at page 5
as to this rejection that the apparent focus in Carre is upon address conversions.
This concept corresponds to the disclosed but unclaimed translation. The Summary
of the Invention at columns 1 and 2 of Carre expands upon the Abstract’s teachings.
The Summary emphasizes the ability to communicate both the originating and
translated address values.
If the artisan considers the teachings of Carre from the point of view of a
managed object with respect to communicating to a manager, the format that the
given manager operates in would have automatically been selected according to the
translations of Carre and in the manner claimed for any messages including
address information that would be communicated from a managed object to the
manager. Correspondingly, any communication from a manager to a managed
object would originate in a format implicitly selected by or required by the manager
where Carre would translate this to the addressing capability of the managed object.

Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

7
The address translation or conversion in Carre is perhaps best appreciated by
the discussion at column 5, line 65 through column 6, line 40. The discussion in
the initial lines at column 6 indicates that an object name as well as an address
associated with an object name or a part of the addressability is communicated and
translated. Thus, it is apparent that not only is the ASN or abstract syntax notation
utilized as in dependent claim 2, but the use of text is also taught as in dependent
claim 2. The teaching at column 6, lines 36 through 40, also appears to indicate
that a full translation capability beyond address types is contemplated by Carre.
The noted discussion at column 6 also includes a brief discussion of figures
4a, 4b and 5. These coding figures appear to indicate name translations and the
chooseability or switchability between object types.
Because of these remarks, we do not agree with appellants’ positions in the
brief as to independent claim 1 as representative of independent claims 1, 16 and
31, as noted earlier, as well as the corresponding features of dependent claim 2 and
corresponding features recited in dependent claims 17 and 32. Moreover, the
extensive remarks in the reply brief merely appear to repeat emphatically the

Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

8
positions already taken in the brief. We do not read the claimed selectability as
restrictively as appellants appear to invite us to do in light of the state of the
admitted prior art as well as the disclosed features in Carre.
Turning next to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of the various claims as
being anticipated by Shank, we consider, as noted earlier in this opinion, claims 1,
2, 10, 11 and 13 as representative of the subject matter of the other corresponding
claims. For the reasons set forth by the examiner as amplifed here, we sustain the
rejection of the claims based on Shank.
Contrary to the general assertions made in the brief and reply brief, Shank is
concerned with managers and managed objects. Even figure 1 of Shank appears to
correspond to the showing in appellants’ disclosed figure 1a. The application 140
of Shank appears to correspond to the client/manager software in appellants’ figure
1a. Correspondingly, the server 110 also appears to correspond to the agent
software in appellants’ figure 1a and the various hardware elements comprise
appellants’ claimed managed objects 150 in figure 1a which have correspondence
to the various managed objects within both the media service 120 and the telephony
service 130 in Shank. It appears to us that the artisan would have well appreciated
from the teachings of Shank that the server 110 corresponds to the claimed
Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

9
claimed gateway. Figure 2 of Shank shows corresponding CORBA distributed
software bus 260 analogous to the described CORBA bus 202 in appellants’ figure
2. The last part of the abstract of Shank even relates to the interfaceability using
interface definition language interfaces (IDL) along with application program
interfaces or APIs implemented using CORBA. Shank’s title relates to an abstract
interface and the teaching in Shank related to media and telephony services is
generalized at column 2, lines 45 through 50 in the same manner they would
correspond to the appellants’ claimed invention compared to the disclosed
environment in their own disclosed figure 1a.
Shank’s clients/applications communicate using hardware-independent and
operating system-independent APIs in an object-oriented programming
environment such that the client becomes a manager and establishes various
sessions or communicates via various messages with Shank’s server as a gateway
with respect to various media service and telephony service objects and hardware.
This manager/application 140 is repeatedly said to “invoke” various commands
with respect to the operability of these latter devices through the server 110 such as
to clearly indicate to the artisan that the server is clearly “configurable” to permit
communications between the manager/application 140 through platform-
Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

10
independent interfaces ultimately to the managed objects/devices using a message
format approach. Clearly, the application communicates in a format determined or
otherwise selected by the manager in a manner claimed especially since the
selectability that is required of representative independent claim 1 on appeal is not
said to selectively choose from among a plurality of options.
Generally, as basically asserted by the examiner, the entire system
architecture topic beginning at the middle of column 3 of Shank is compelling.
Of particular note is the paragraph at the middle of column 4 as relied on by the
examiner and the discussion in the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 allowing
resources to be accessed by name such as the broadly defined text format of
dependent claim 2. The formatability in terms of messages to be sent to particular
types of media and telephony devices also suggests the selectability by the
application to choose which one and its necessary format through the server 110.
Of particular note among them is the teachings and showings relating to facsimile
services, and speech recognition which requires speech to text conversions, specific
features of which relate to the claimed text capability in dependent claim

Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

11
2. Additionally, the discussion beginning at column 6, line 48 through the top of
column 7 in Shank clearly relates to the configurability of the server by the
selective use of APIs and the usability of API extensions to do so.
These considerations are also taught persuasively in the discussion at
columns 7 and 8 of Shank relating to the application-server interface topic there.
The table at the bottom of column 8 makes clear that communication is through
various messages also suggesting text as recited in dependent claim 2. The
discussion at the middle of column 17, as noted by the examiner, is compelling of
the selectability by the application 140 controlling the media services interface 220
and the media server 200 in a language independent and platform-independent
manner. The teachings in Shank make clear that the communication can be in the
form of a query or a command as in dependent claims 10 and 11. There are
repeated teachings regarding interface definition language (IDL) and the ability to
use platform-specific formats upon which any media or telephony device operates
(claim 13).
In light of Shank’s compelling teachings, we are unpersuased by any of
appellants’ arguments in the principal brief which appear to be basically repeated in
the reply brief.
Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

12
Turning lastly to the rejection of various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Shank, again, we note that the features of claim 3 are also
recited in dependent claims 18 and 33 and the features in claim 12 are recited in
dependent claims 27 and 42.
We sustain this rejection even through we recognize, at first blush, the
apparent weaknesses in the examiner’s positions with respect to the noted claims as
first expressed at page 8 of the answer. Because Shank makes continued references
to identifiable and generic types of prior art interfaces, the examiner’s basic thrust
here as well as the additional remarks at page 11 of the answer are persuasive of
unpatentability of the specific recitation of the ASN1 feature in claims 3, 18 and 33.
The examiner’s position that this is a well known industry standard is well-taken,
particularly since appellants’ buttress this by their own admission of the prior art in
the initial pages of the specification as filed. The same may be said of the portable
management interface (PMI) capability in dependent claim 12. Appellants’
admitted prior art already recognizes that this is a proprietary interface which,
together with a generic teaching of off-the-shelf interfaces for particularly different
types of media telephony devices, would have been an obvious variation/choice to
the artisan.
Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

13
Lastly, we note in passing the nature and scope of the “carrier medium”
preambular limitation of independent claim 31 and its respective dependent claims.
The nature of the mediums of the disclosed invention is first addressed with respect
to figure 1b at specification page 17, line 3 through page 19, line 17 which were
expanded upon at specification page 46, lines 8 through 13. At this latter location,
appellants expand the intended meaning of medium to include transmission media
or signals. It appears to us that, to the extent claim 31 and its dependent claims
may be considered to read upon transmission media or signals, they appear to be
subject to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 since there appears to be no statutory
basis or category of invention relating to such transmission media or signals per se.
We are unaware of any authority which authorizes or permits transitory
transmission media or signals to be within a statutory category of invention.

Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

14
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting various
claims on appeal under §§ 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §1.136(a). See 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JDT/pgc
Appeal No. 2006-1755
Application No. 09/557,068

15
Robert C. Kowert
Conley Rose & Tayon PC
P.O. Box 398
Austin, TX 78767