Ex Parte Bawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 5, 2009

10156228 (B.P.A.I. May. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte SATVINDER SINGH BAWA
__________

Appeal 2008-4156
Application 10/156,228
Technology Center 2400
__________

Decided1: May 5, 2009
__________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2008-4156
Application 10/156,228

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.

The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to network management and
service provisioning in which software application components are loadable
for execution separate from corresponding code portions to provide for a
reduction in resource utilization (Spec. 9).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A network management and service provisioning hub
provisioning a network management and service provisioning
environment, the hub comprising:
at least two interconnected computers, each computer including
local persistent storage for storing at least one of a plurality of
software application components of a network management and
service provisioning solution and a software application code portion
corresponding to each software application component; each software
application code portion corresponding to each software application
component; each software application code portion being loaded for
execution during the startup of the corresponding computer, the
software application code portion advertising features and
functionality of the corresponding software application component
within the network management and service provisioning
environment;
each software application component being selectively loadable
for execution separate from, and on the same computer as, the
corresponding software application code portion, the separate loading
of said software application component from the corresponding
application code portion providing a reduction in resource utilization
Appeal 2008-4156
Application 10/156,228

3
in provisioning the network management and service provisioning
solution.

The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Pehrson US 6,339,705 B1 Jan. 15, 2002
Liang US 6,738,811 B1 May 18, 2004
(filed Mar. 31, 2000)

The Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pehrson and Liang.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that “Pehrson discloses the software application
component and its corresponding software application code portion as
shown in col.7, lines 7-40.” (Ans. 10.)
Appellants assert that while Pehrson discloses a Base Station
Management System (BMS) in communication with Base Stations (BS) and
that the BSM “queries the BS to determine if it is necessary to upload a
module from the BS to the BSM” (App. Br. 9), the “BSM does not advertise
to the BS the features and functionality of any management modules it has
locally” (App. Br. 9-10) and that “the BS’s of Pehrson cannot constitute the
software application component and the corresponding software application
code portion of the claims . . . because no single software element on the BS
of Pehrson is . . . loaded at start-up of the BS . . . [and because] no two
Appeal 2008-4156
Application 10/156,228

4
software elements are . . . both to be stored on the BS and which are loaded
and executed separately on the same BS.” (App. 10.)
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Pehrson discloses or suggests a software application code portion
corresponding to and advertising features and functionality of at least one of
a corresponding software application component?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Pehrson discloses “loading and executing BSM software” (col. 7, l.
14).
2. Pehrson discloses that an “operator selects a BS for which a
management operation or task is to be performed” (col. 7, ll. 22-23).
3. Pehrson discloses that “in response to the BSM software application
started by the operator, the BSM system . . . requests . . . ‘BS log-in
initial data’” (col. 7, ll. 26-31) and that “[t]he selected BS responds
. . . by sending the requested data to the BSM . . . if it is possible to
perform the operation or task requested” (col. 7, ll. 31-34), the data
including “information about which management program modules
should be loaded and/or executed in the BSM to perform the actual
management operations or tasks desired” (col. 7, ll. 35-38).
4. Pehrson discloses that “the selected BS . . . transmits the initial log-in
data to the BSM” (col. 7, ll. 43-44) and that the BSM “checks to
Appeal 2008-4156
Application 10/156,228

5
determine if the required applications (programs) . . . are stored
locally” (col. 7, ll. 46-48) and, if not, “the BSM sends a request . . .
to the selected BS . . . for the BS to convey the needed program(s)
back to the BSM” (col. 7, ll. 48-52).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007).

ANALYSIS (ISSUE #1)
As above, Pehrson discloses an operator executing software on a BSM
to perform an “operation or task.” The BSM of Pehrson communicates with
a BS to request “information about which” modules should be loaded onto
the BSM from the BS “to perform the actual management operations or
tasks desired” (FF 1-3). When needed modules are not already present
locally on the BSM, the BS conveys “the needed program(s) back to the
BSM” (FF 4). Hence, Pehrson discloses a BSM executing an operation that
Appeal 2008-4156
Application 10/156,228

6
requires software modules and the BSM determining which modules are
required to perform the operation and obtaining the required modules from a
corresponding BS.
Appellant argues that “the base station management software 220
does not advertise the features and functionality of the management modules
it has stored locally” (App. Br. 10). We agree. The Examiner broadly cites
the Pehrson reference at col. 7, ll. 7-40 as supposedly disclosing or
suggesting “the software application code portion advertising features and
functionality of the corresponding software application component within
the network management and service provisioning environment (see col.7,
lines 7-40)” (Ans. 3) but does not specify which specific features within the
cited passage of Pehrson correlate with the disputed claim features.
Using a broad but reasonable construction of the phrase “advertising
features and functionality” as including announcing, declaring, or otherwise
making known any relevant characteristics or qualities, we do not find, and
the Examiner has not explicitly pointed out, a specific disclosure in Pehrson
that is at least suggestive of a software application code portion announcing
or declaring (i.e., “advertising”) features of a corresponding software
application component. Also, while the Examiner generally finds that the
Pehrson reference at col. 7, ll. 7-40 discloses the claimed features, in the
absence of any specific findings by the Examiner, it is unclear which
component in Pehrson the Examiner is equating with the claimed “code
portion” and which component in Pehrson the Examiner is equating with the
claimed “software application components.”
Appeal 2008-4156
Application 10/156,228

7
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have met their burden of
showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 and
independent claim 9, which recites equivalent limitations to those discussed
above regarding independent claim 1. We therefore reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 9, and of claims 2-8 and 10-20, which depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Pehrson and Liang.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that Pehrson
discloses or suggests a software application code portion corresponding to
and advertising features and functionality of at least one of a corresponding
software application component.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED

erc

Appeal 2008-4156
Application 10/156,228

8
MARKS & CLERK
P.O. BOX 957
STATION B
OTTAWA, ON K1P 587
CANADA