Ex Parte Andrieux et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 5, 201411099764 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/099,764 04/05/2005 Laure Andrieux 50325-0969 1173 29989 7590 12/08/2014 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP 1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD FLOOR 12 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 EXAMINER DIVECHA, NISHANT B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2615 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/08/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LAURE ANDRIEUX and MUHAMMAD MOIZUDDIN ___________ Appeal 2012-009714 Application 11/099,764 1 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 2, 4–8 and 11–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1, 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to “managing resources, such as MPLS VPN routes, associated with routers and other network devices, and accounting for the costs of resources in billing processes.” Specification 1. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Cisco Systems, Inc. Appeal Brief. 1. Appeal 2012-009714 Application 11/099,764 2 Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 2. A method, comprising the computer-implemented steps of: creating and storing, in association with first information identifying a network element and second information identifying a customer entity that uses the network element, a maximum routes limit value representing a maximum number of routes that the network element is allowed to store, and a threshold routes limit value that is less than the maximum routes limit value; receiving a total routes value from the network element indicating that the network element has added, to a routing table of the network element, a total number of routes equal to the total routes value and greater than the threshold routes limit value; in response to determining that the total routes value is greater than the threshold routes limit value, without receiving a request from the customer entity, automatically performing a responsive action by upgrading a configuration of the network element to provide an upgraded service level to the network element; wherein the responsive action comprises automatically charging a fee to an account associated with the customer entity for exceeding the threshold routes limit value; wherein the method is performed by one or more processors. Rejections on Appeal Claims 2, 12, 16, and 19–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nadeau (THOMAS D. NADEAU ET AL., MPLS/BGP VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION BASE USING Appeal 2012-009714 Application 11/099,764 3 SMIV2 (2001)) and Molen (US Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0198311 A1; published September 7, 2006). Answer 4–18. Claims 4, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nadeau, Molen, and Cisco (CISCO SYSTEMS, CISCO NETWORK-BASED IPSEC VPN SOLUTION (1992)). Answer 18–22. Claims 5–7, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nadeau, Molen, and Configuring BGP VPN Services (2003). Answer 22–26. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nadeau, Molen, and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art. Answer 26–27. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 26, 2012), the Answer (mailed April 16, 2012) and Reply Brief (June 15, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We agree with the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 4–8 and 11–22 for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants argue Molen fails to “describe performing a responsive action without receiving a request from the customer entity” because “[i]n Molen, a responsive action is performed in response to receiving an explicit request from the user, not without receiving a request from the user.” Appeal Brief 11. Appellants argue Molen’s responsive action (the purchase) Appeal 2012-009714 Application 11/099,764 4 is only performed “if the user sends an explicit request to purchase the network access for the additional users” and therefore the purchase is never initiated without receiving a request from the user. Id. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Molen also discloses “[o]ther alternatives could involve automatically billing the originally authenticated user for the additional users, or to change the billing scheme from, for example, a flat rate to some usage based billing scheme.” Molen ¶ 65. Further, Appellants have not shown that automatically performing these functions in lieu of at least some manual interaction would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellants contend the term service level is a term of the art that indicates a quantity and quality of the services provided by a service provider. Appeal Brief 12. Appellants argue that, “[p]urchasing additional network access is not analogous to upgrading a configuration of a network element to provide an upgraded service level to the network element because it does not cause or require upgrading of the service level provided to the network element.” Id. at 13. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because while service level might be considered to be a term of the art, there is no definition provided that distinguishes the term over Molen’s addition of network access for additional users, which also indicates a quantity and quality of services provided. Appeal 2012-009714 Application 11/099,764 5 Finally, we find the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner articulated reasoning with rational underpinning supporting the legal conclusion of obviousness. 2 Answer 7. Therefore we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. See Appeal Brief 15–17. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 2, as well as, independent claims 12, 16 and 19–22, not separately argued. 3 Id. at 17. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 4–8, 11–15, 17 and 18, not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 4–8 and 11–22 are affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED bar 2 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987–88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner can satisfy this test by showing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. 3 Appellants state, “[e]ach of independent Claims 12, 16 and 19–22 recited features similar to those in independent Claim 1.” Appeal Brief 17. However, claim 1 was cancelled in an amendment filed November 10, 2010. We find Appellants’ statement was a harmless error and we refer to independent claim 2. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation