Ex Parte Bar-Tor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2014

11937117 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHEN BAR-TOR and HAROLD LAWENTHAL
____________________

Appeal 2011-010953
Application 11/937,117
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010953
Application 11/937,117

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chen Bar-Tor et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jakobson (US 2006/0015603 A1; pub. Jan. 19,
2006) and Valadarsky (US 7,043,661 B2; iss. May 9, 2006). App. Br. 3.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A network simulator comprising:
a virtual network that models a network that
comprises one or more managed portions and one
or more unmanaged portions;
wherein the virtual network comprises a
plurality of virtual network elements (VNEs) that
correspond to a plurality of network elements in
the network;
logic encoded in one or more tangible media
for execution and, when executed, operable to
perform:
receiving first data that indicates an
event occurred in the network;
in response to the first data, initiating
a network flow at a source VNE corresponding to
a source network device toward a destination VNE
corresponding to a destination network device;
traversing one or more first physical
topological links between the source VNE and the
destination VNE;
before the network flow arrives at the
destination VNE, determining that a first VNE is
Appeal 2011-010953
Application 11/937,117

3

communicatively coupled to a particular VNE in a
portion of the virtual network and that a physical
topological link from the first VNE toward the
destination VNE is not available, wherein the
particular VNE corresponds to one of the one or
more unmanaged portions of the network;
in response to the determining that the
first VNE is communicatively coupled to the
particular VNE and that a physical topological link
from the first VNE toward the destination VNE is
not available, identifying and traversing a logical
topological link to a second VNE;
after traversing the logical topological
link to the second VNE, identifying second data
that is associated with the unmanaged portion of
the network; and
storing, in association, the first data
and the second data.

ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend that Jakobson fails to teach or
suggest “a virtual network that models a network that comprises one or more
managed portions and one or more unmanaged portions,” as claimed. App.
Br. 5. Appellants contend that Jakobson only suggests managed networks
55a-c, and fails to teach or suggest anything related to unmanaged portions
of a network. Id. Appellants contend Jakobson discloses that managed
networks 55a-c are managed from the perspective of network correlation
system 10, and that Jakobson never expressly states that networks 55a-c are
unmanaged. Id. at 6.
The Examiner found that Jakobson discloses a network topology
service, which provides network topology modeling. Ans. 4 (citing to
Jakobson, para. [0056]). The Examiner also found that Appellants’
Appeal 2011-010953
Application 11/937,117

4

Specification states “[n]etwork segments that are not owned and/or not
managed by a provider are referred to herein as ‘unmanaged segments’ with
respect to that provider.” Ans. 12 (citing Spec., para. [0008]). The
Examiner found that Jakobson discloses multiple managed networks 55a-c
and “various network management entities,” and therefore discloses multiple
service providers operating various managed networks. Ans. 12 (citing to
Jakobson, para. [0021]; fig. 5). The Examiner found that Jakobson discloses
“managed networks operated by different network management entities
(read: service providers) 55A, 55B, and 55C” and “55A and 55B are
‘unmanaged networks’ for the particular service provider managing 55C
under Applicant’s definition as they are not owned or managed by the entity
owning and/or managing 55C.” Id. at 13.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not show that
Jakobson discloses a virtual network that models a network comprising one
or more unmanaged portions. Particularly, the Examiner found that
Jakobson’s managed networks 55a-c are unmanaged relative to each other
because they are operated by different service providers. Ans. 12-13. For
support that each of networks 55a-c is operated by a different service
provider, the Examiner cited to paragraph [0021] of Jakobson. This
paragraph describes an “event correlation system for efficiently correlating a
plurality of network events and then transmitting correlated (derived)
messages to various network management entities in response to an
occurrence of a particular network event.” Jakobson, para. [0021].
However, as correctly noted by Appellants, the only “entities” that receive
messages in response to an occurrence of an event are operator workstations
35a-c. Reply Br. 2; see, e.g., Jakobson, para. [0062]. Thus, we agree with
Appeal 2011-010953
Application 11/937,117

5

Appellants that paragraph [0021] of Jakobson is properly understood as
referring to operator workstations 35a-c coupled to network management
service 30. Id. at 1-2. The Examiner did not provide sufficient evidence to
support the finding that Jakobson’s managed networks 55a-c are operated by
different service providers, and hence, the Examiner failed to show that
Jakobson discloses a virtual network that models a network comprising one
or more unmanaged portions, as required by claim 1.
The Examiner’s findings regarding Valadarsky do not cure the
deficiencies of Jakobson. Ans. 7. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8.
Independent claims 9, 17, and 25 each recite the limitation “wherein
the network comprises one or more managed portions and one or more
unmanaged portions” similar to the limitation in claim 1 discussed supra.
Thus, for reasons similar to those described supra regarding claim 1, we also
do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 9, 17, and 25 and their
dependent claims 10-16, 18-24, and 26.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-26.

REVERSED

mls