Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2017

13537911 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/537,911 06/29/2012 Thomas Anderson JR. 2012P12587US 1732
28524 7590 05/31/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
CHOI, YUK TING
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS ANDERSON JR.,
JOHN JEFFERS, ROBERT GAFFANEY, and THOMAS RULE
Appeal 2015-0051591
Application 13/537,911
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens
Akeiengesellschaft. (App. Br. 4.)
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention “is directed, in general, to management systems
and, more particularly, to automated discovery and generation of hierarchies
for building automation and control network objects.” (June 29, 2012
Specification (“Spec.”) p. 3.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced
below (with minor reformatting):
1. A method in a data processing system for generating a
hierarchical structure for a plurality of objects, the method
comprising:
identifying a name of a first object in the plurality of
objects, the plurality of objects associated with one more devices
communicably connected to a building automation and controls
network;
parsing characters in the name of the first object to identify
a plurality of name segments separated by one or more delimiters
in the name in response to identifying the one or more delimiters;
identifying a type of the first object and a location of a first
device associated with the first object based on the plurality of
name segments; and
generating a hierarchical structure for the plurality of
objects based on the type and the location, the hierarchical
structure comprising a name for each of the plurality of objects.
Prior Art
Camilleri et al.
(“Camilleri”)
Pusateri et al.
(“Pusateri”)
and Rejection on Appeal
US 2007/0095906 Al
US 2009/0216867 Al
May 3, 2007
Aug. 27, 2009
2
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Camilleri in view of Pusateri. (See July 17, 2014 Final
Action (“Final Act.”) 4—11.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments.
Claim 1
“identifying a name of a first object in the plurality of objects,
the plurality of objects associated with one more devices
communicably connected to a building automation and controls network”
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Camilleri teaches or
suggests “identifying a name of a first object in the plurality of objects, the
plurality of objects associated with one more devices communicably
connected to a building automation and controls network.” (Final Act. 4—5
(citing to Camilleri paragraphs 19, 28, and 33-34.) Appellants contend that
“[njothing in these paragraphs describes any name of any object at all.”
(App. Br. 19; Reply 16-17.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings that the
“devices” in Camilleri are the physical printers, located, for example, in the
UCLA Extension Campus, the “objects” are the representations of the
printers in the tracking and location system, and the “name” is the
information stored in the management interface base (“MIB”), which
includes “identifiers such as Model name, IP Hostname, IPX name,
Hardware Address and other metadata or attributes that are known to one of
ordinary skill in the art to identify an asset or an object in the enterprise.”
(Ans. 3-5.) Appellants’ further contentions that the “claim language does
3
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
not allow the same printer to be both the ‘device’ and the ‘object,’ and that
these terms are not interchangeable” (Reply 14) are misplaced because, as
discussed above, the Examiner correctly finds the “devices” are the actual
physical devices and the “objects” are the representation of these devices in
the system.
We are similarly not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that
“Camilleri’s printers are not shown to be associated with one more devices
communicably connected to a building automation and controls network, as
claimed.” (Reply 15, emphasis in original.) We understand the Examiner’s
rejection is based on interpreting “one more devices communicably
connected to a building automation and controls network” as including
devices that are connected to a network. (Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 4.)
Appellants do not explain why the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable
or overly broad but instead argue that “none of the assets is taught to be
associated with any other asset, as the claimed objects must be associated
with devices.” (Reply 16, emphasis in original.) However, as discussed
above, the Examiner finds the “devices” are the actual physical devices and
the “objects” are the representation of these devices in the system.
Appellants therefore have not persuaded us of Examiner error.
“parsing characters in the name of the first object to identify a
plurality of name segments separated by one or more delimiters ...”
The Examiner finds that although
Camilleri does not explicitly disclose parsing characters
in the name of the first object to identify a plurality of name
segments separated by one or more delimiters in the name.
Pusateri discloses parsing characters in the name of the
first object to identify a plurality of name segments separated by
one or more delimiters in the name ....
4
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
(Final Act. 6, emphasis in original.) Appellants contend that “Camilleri does
not teach any anything [sic] with a plurality of name segments separated by
delimiters, does not identify any delimiters, and does not perform any action
in response to identifying delimiters.” (App. Br. 25.) Appellants, however,
have not persuaded us of Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that the MIB in Camilleri can contain “multiple fields of asset
tracking information” and according to paragraph 40 of Camilleri, the MIB
can be comma-delimited. (Ans. 5.) Appellants’ further contention that
“Camilleri’s MIB objects are not taught to include in any names of objects”
(Reply 19-20, emphasis added) is also not persuasive because, as discussed
above, “Camilleri’s MIB object” is properly mapped to the “name of the first
object” and not to the “objects” in claim 1. We are also not persuaded by
Appellants’ further contention that “nothing in this paragraph, or any other
part of Camilleri, discusses processing or parsing characters in the name of
the first object at all” (Reply 20) because, as discussed above, the Examiner
is relying on Pusateri’s teachings or suggestions, not Camilleri’s, for
“parsing characters.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
For the same reason, we are also not persuaded by Appellants’ further
contention that “Pusateri does not teach or suggest parsing characters in the
name of the first object to identify a plurality of name segments separated by
one or more delimiters in the name in response to identifying the one or
more delimiters, as claimed,” because the Examiner is relying on the
combination of Camilleri and Pusateri for this limitation; Pusateri teaches
parsing characters in a name. (Reply 22-23.)
5
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
“generating a hierarchical structure . . .
based on the type and the location ...”
The Examiner finds that Camilleri teaches or suggests “generating a
hierarchical structure for the plurality of objects based on the type and the
location, the hierarchical structure comprising a name for each of the
plurality of objects.” (Final Act. 5-6.) Appellants contend that “no
combination of the references can possibly generate a hierarchical structure
for the plurality of objects based on the object type and the location of the
associated device by identifying and parsing object names as claimed” and
that “[i]t is clear in this case that the Examiner is engaging in improper
hindsight reconstruction.” (App. Br. 26-28.) We note that “the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Moreover, we agree with, and incorporate as our own, the
Examiner’s finding regarding this limitation (Ans. 7; Final Act. 5-6). For
example, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Camilleri teaches or
suggests this limitation:
the system generates a GUI for managing assets of printers and
other devices. The GUI includes a device management area 202,
an asset management area 204 and a search area 206. The device
management area 202 includes a hierarchical schematic
representation of devices being managed. ... For example, the
device management area can create a device/asset group includes
the asset type such as the printers used by the doctors on one
wing of a hospital while create another group includes all the
printers used by hospital administrators on another floor of the
hospital and display a hierarchical schematic representation.
6
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
(Ans. 7 (citing to Camilleri Figure 2A and paragraph 25).) Appellants,
however, contend that the ‘“hierarchical schematic representation’ is not
based on the type and the location of the object that are identified by the
system from the name segments of the object.'1'’ (Reply 25-26.) This
argument is a new argument that is raised in reply and is deemed waived.
See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an
argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex
parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (explaining that
arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not
be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause
explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal
Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative)
(“Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a
belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a
showing of good cause.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites, in part, “generating a logical view of the plurality of
objects based on location of the one or more devices.” The Examiner finds
that Camilleri teaches or suggests this limitation. (Final Act. 6-7.)
Appellants contend that “[njothing in Camilleri, and specifically nothing in
the cited paragraph or figure, teaches or suggests generating a logical view
of the plurality of objects based on location of the one or more devices, as
claimed. . . . [Tjhere is no logical view based on the location.” (App. Br.
30-31; Reply 29.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings that:
the device management area [(202 of FIG. 2 A of Camilleri)] can
create a device/asset group includes the asset type such as the
printers used by the doctors on one wing of a hospital while
7
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
create another group includes all the printers used by hospital
administrators on another floor of the hospital and display a
hierarchical logical representation.
(Ans. 8-9, emphasis added.) In other words, one device group consists of
printers used by the doctors on “one wing of a hospital,” while another
group includes all printer groups “on another floor.” Figure 2A of Camilleri
is reproduced below.
F/G, 2 A
Figure 2A “depicts a graphic user interface (GUI) for managing printer
assets and other device assets.” (Camilleri | 6.) Appellants argues that the
Examiner is using “improper hindsight to attempt to reconstruct the claims
by asserting that the reference ‘could’ be modified to meet the claim
limitations — with no supporting teaching in the references themselves.'1'
(App. Br. 31, emphasis added.) Appellants’ conclusory argument, however,
8
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
is not persuasive. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357; In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at
1470; In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705. Moreover, “the question under
35 USC [§] 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach, but what
they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made.” In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976).
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites, in part, “identifying a general location and a specific
location in the general location of one or more of the plurality of objects . . .
and grouping a set objects in the specific location in the general location
within a same folder in the hierarchical structure.” The Examiner finds that
Camilleri teaches or suggests this limitation. (Final Act. 7.) Appellants
contend that “[njothing in Camilleri, and specifically nothing in the cited
paragraphs or figure, teaches or suggests identifying a general location and a
specific location in the general location of one or more of the plurality of
objects from name segments identified from names of the plurality of objects,
as claimed.” (App. Br. 33.) According to Appellants,
the statements of the Office Action that “one group could be all
printers used by the doctors on one wing of a hospital while
another group could be all the printers used by hospital
administrators on another floor of the hospital” are completely
unsupported in the cited references, and appear to be the
personal conjecture of the Examiner.
{Id., emphasis added.) This argument is not persuasive in light of the
explicit disclosure in paragraph 25 of Camilleri:
Device groups 212 is a configurable list of devices divided into
different groups as needed by the organization or enterprise. For
example, one group could be all printers used by the doctors on
one wing of a hospital while another group could be all the
9
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
printers used by hospital administrators on another floor of the
hospital. In any event, the different device groups are user
configurable.
(Camilleri 125, emphasis added.) Furthermore, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that “Camilleri is grouping a set of objects [e.g. [,] the set
of printers and other devices] in the specific location [e.gfj the set of
Doctors equipment in one wing] in the general location [e.gfj the hospital]
within a same folder in a hierarchal representation.” (Ans. 10, original
emphasis omitted, italics added.)
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites, in part, “determining whether one of a name of an
object. . . and a number of objects plurality of objects changed . . . and
updating the hierarchical structure for the plurality of objects to include a
change in response to determining . . . .” Appellants contend that “[a]s
discussed in detail with respect to the parent claim, however, Camilleri does
not teach or suggest any hierarchical structure for the plurality of objects
based on the type and the location and comprising a name for each of the
plurality of objects, as claimed.” (App. Br. 36.) Therefore, based on the
discussion above regarding claim 1, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites, in part, “searching for the name for each of the
plurality of objects on the building automation and controls network using a
discovery process.” Appellants contend that “Camilleri does not specifically
teach or suggest that its discovery process includes searching for the name
for each of a plurality of objects on a building automation and controls
network, as claimed, and certainly not in the context of the parent claim.”
10
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
(App. Br. 38.) Appellants, however, have not persuaded us of Examiner
error. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357 (We note that “the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
Here, Appellants have not presented any cogent arguments sufficient to
address the Examiner’s detailed position and instead assert, without
elaboration or specific criticism of the Examiner’s detailed findings, that the
references do not disclose the limitation at issue. (See, e.g., App. Br. 38;
Reply 37.) Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding this
claim:
Camilleri discloses a search area 206 [in Figure 2A] to search for
devices. For example, a user can search a specific asset in the
Enterprise network such as the LaserJet 4600 with IP address
25.39.41.65. The system would identity the asset Laser Jet 4600
with IP address 25.39.41.65 has a Model name, an IP Hostname,
an IPX name and other identifiers which uniquely identify the
asset.
(Ans. 13, original emphasis omitted.)
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites, in part, “identifying a network requested to have
object discovery performed; and filtering objects discovered in the plurality
of objects to objects on the requested network.” The Examiner finds that
item 206 in Figure 2A of Camilleri (reproduced above) teaches or suggests
“a quick search of the network” and paragraph 48 and Figure 4 of Camilleri
teaches “sending one or more inventory criteria to search for a print[er] or
service of interest [and] filtering out objects or devices that do not meet the
inventory criteria.” (Final Act. 8.) Appellants contend the Examiner erred
11
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
because “discovered objects [in Camilleri] are [not] filtered to objects on a
requested network, as claimed [as] Camilleri’s process appears to be limited
to discovery of printers and devices on a single network.” (App. Br. 40-41;
Reply 38-40.) The Examiner responds that “Camilleri discloses a search
area 206 to search or discover devices that are in the enterprise network.”
(Ans. 14.) We agree with the Examiner’s finding that in Camilleri, by
performing a search on the enterprise network, the user is necessarily
requesting an object discovery on a particular network, and therefore,
requesting a particular network (i.e., the enterprise network). With regard to
Appellants’ contention that “Camilleri’s process appears to be limited to
discovery of printers and devices on a single network” (App. Br. 40-41), we
note that the claim does not require there to be a plurality of networks but
simply a network that can be requested and identified for the object
discovery to be performed. Appellants have, therefore, not persuaded us of
Examiner error.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites, in part, “identifying a range of object identifiers
requested to have object discovery performed; and filtering objects
discovered in the plurality of objects to objects within the range of requested
object identifiers.” The Examiner finds that Figure 4 and paragraphs 48 and
51 of Camilleri teach or suggest “sending one or more inventory criteria to
search for a print[er] or service of interest [and] filtering out objects or
devices that do not meet the inventory criteria.” (Final Act. 9.) Appellants
contend the limitations are not met because:
Camilleri describes that printers or other devices on a network
can be presented according to “inventory criteria,” but does not
teach identifying a range of object identifiers requested to have
12
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
object discovery performed or filtering objects discovered in the
plurality of objects to objects within the range of requested object
identifiers, as claimed. Nothing in Camilleri teaches or suggests
that a range of object identifiers can or should be part of the
“inventory criteria.”
(App. Br. 42-43, emphases added.) We agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Camilleri teaches or suggests that the “inventory criteria” can include “a
range of device identifiers such as Campus, building, Address and etc.” and
as an example, “a user can search a specific asset in the Enterprise network
such as the LaserJet 4600[,] which is located in the UCLA Extension
Campus.” (Ans. 15, emphases added.) Appellants do not explain why the
Examiner’s interpretation of “identifying a range of object identifiers
requested . . . and filtering objects discovered . . . within the range of
requested object identifiers” is overly broad or unreasonable nor do
Appellants propose an alternative construction. (Reply 41—43.) Appellants,
instead, repeated their arguments in their Reply Brief. (Id.) Appellants have
not persuaded us of Examiner error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1—7 and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these
claims. Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 8—20 (App. Br. 43—78) are
similar to those for claims 1—7 (id. at 16-43). Therefore, we also sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 8—20.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—20.
13
Appeal 2015-005159
Application 13/537,911
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
14